Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

A qualitative investigation of patients' and caregivers' experiences of severe sepsis*.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and describe the subjective experiences and long-term impact of severe sepsis on survivors of severe sepsis and their informal caregivers (e.g., spouse or family member) through qualitative research methods. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews with survivors of severe sepsis and their informal caregivers in the United Kingdom and United States. Participants also completed a demographic background form and sites provided medical history details. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. SETTING: Patients were recruited from a large National Health Service hospital in the United Kingdom and a level 1 trauma center hospital in the United States. Caregivers were recruited through eligible patients. Interviews were conducted either face to face in participant's homes or another convenient location or over the telephone. PATIENTS: Patients who were 18 years old or older and had experienced an episode of severe sepsis in the previous 12 months were recruited by clinical staff in each hospital. Caregivers were family members or friends who had provided informal care for the patient after their episode of severe sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine interviews were conducted with 22 patients and 17 informal caregivers (of these 28 were conducted face-to-face and 11 by telephone). Five main themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: awareness and knowledge of severe sepsis; experience of hospitalization, ongoing impact of severe sepsis; impact on caregivers; and support after severe sepsis. Experiences varied depending on the patients' health prior to the severe sepsis, with the worst affected reporting lasting impacts on multiple aspects of their life. CONCLUSIONS: The study extends what was understood about severe sepsis from the patients' and caregivers' perspectives from the previous limited literature. Caregivers as well as patients reported enduring impact. The study also identified problems of lack of awareness of diagnosis and understanding of severe sepsis by patients and caregivers and difficulties accessing appropriate healthcare providers and ancillary services after discharge from hospital.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Early enteral supplementation with key pharmaconutrients improves Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in critically ill patients with sepsis: outcome of a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of an early enteral pharmaconutrition supplement containing glutamine dipeptides, antioxidative vitamins and trace elements, and butyrate in critically ill, septic patients. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Adult intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: Fifty-five critically ill, septic patients requiring enteral feeding. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either an enteral supplement (500 mL of Intestamin, Fresenius Kabi) containing conditionally essential nutrients or a control solution via the nasogastric route for up to 10 days. Inclusion occurred within 24 hrs of intensive care unit admission. Additionally, patients received enteral feeding with an immunonutrition formula (experimental group) or standard formula (control group) initiated within 48 hrs after enrollment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Organ dysfunction was assessed by daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over the 10-day study period in both patient groups. Patients receiving the experimental supplement showed a significantly faster decline in the regression slopes of delta daily total SOFA score over time compared with control. The difference between the regression coefficients of the two slopes was significant irrespective of the level of analysis: intent to treat -0.32 vs. -0.14, p < .0001; per protocol -0.34 vs. -0.14, p < .0001; and completers (patients receiving > or = 80% of the calculated caloric target over a period of 6 days), -0.26 vs. -0.16, p = .0005. Vitamin C, as a marker of supplement absorption, increased from 10.6 (1.9-159.4) micromol/L (normal range 20-50 micromol/L) on day 1 to 58.7 (5.4-189.9) micromol/L by day 3 (p = .002) in the intervention group but remained below the normal range in the control group 17.0 (2.8-78.5) on day 1 and 14.3 (2.4-179.6) on day 3. Serum levels of glycine, serine, arginine, ornithine, vitamin E, and beta-carotene all increased significantly with treatment in the supplementation group. CONCLUSIONS: In medical patients with sepsis, early enteral pharmaconutrition with glutamine dipeptides, vitamin C and E, beta-carotene, selenium, zinc, and butyrate in combination with an immunonutrition formula results in significantly faster recovery of organ function compared with control.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in adult respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN24242669].

INTRODUCTION: To compare the safety and efficacy of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) with conventional mechanical ventilation (CV) for early intervention in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a multi-centre randomized trial in four intensive care units was conducted. METHODS: Patients with ARDS were randomized to receive either HFOV or CV. In both treatment arms a priority was given to maintain lung volume while minimizing peak pressures. CV ventilation strategy was aimed at reducing tidal volumes. In the HFOV group, an open lung strategy was used. Respiratory and circulatory parameters were recorded and clinical outcome was determined at 30 days of follow up. RESULTS: The study was prematurely stopped. Thirty-seven patients received HFOV and 24 patients CV (average APACHE II score 21 and 20, oxygenation index 25 and 18 and duration of mechanical ventilation prior to randomization 2.1 and 1.5 days, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in survival without supplemental oxygen or on ventilator, mortality, therapy failure, or crossover. Adjustment by a priori defined baseline characteristics showed an odds ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.22-2.97) for survival without oxygen or on ventilator, and an odds ratio for mortality of 1.15 (95% CI 0.43-3.10) for HFOV compared with CV. The response of the oxygenation index (OI) to treatment did not differentiate between survival and death. In the HFOV group the OI response was significantly higher than in the CV group between the first and the second day. A post hoc analysis suggested that there was a relatively better treatment effect of HFOV compared with CV in patients with a higher baseline OI. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed, but this trial only had power to detect major differences in survival without oxygen or on ventilator. In patients with ARDS and higher baseline OI, however, there might be a treatment benefit of HFOV over CV. More research is needed to establish the efficacy of HFOV in the treatment of ARDS. We suggest that future studies are designed to allow for informative analysis in patients with higher OI.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: a retrospective comparison of surface and endovascular cooling techniques.

OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic hypothermia (32-34 degrees C) is recommended for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest; however, the optimal technique for cooling is unknown. We aimed to compare therapeutic hypothermia using either surface or endovascular techniques in terms of efficacy, complications and outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirty-bed teaching hospital intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: All patients (n=83) undergoing therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest over a 2.5-year period. The mean age was 61+/-16 years; 88% of arrests occurred out of hospital, and 64% were ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia. INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic hypothermia was initiated in the ICU using iced Hartmann's solution, followed by either surface (n=41) or endovascular (n=42) cooling; choice of technique was based upon endovascular device availability. The target temperature was 32-34 degrees C for 12-24 h, followed by rewarming at a rate of 0.25 degrees Ch(-1). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Endovascular cooling provided a longer time within the target temperature range (p=0.02), less temperature fluctuation (p=0.003), better control during rewarming (0.04), and a lower 48-h temperature load (p=0.008). Endovascular cooling also produced less cooling-associated complications in terms of both overcooling (p=0.05) and failure to reach the target temperature (p=0.04). After adjustment for known confounders, there were no differences in outcome between the groups in terms of ICU or hospital mortality, ventilator free days and neurological outcome. CONCLUSION: Endovascular cooling provides better temperature management than surface cooling, as well as a more favorable complication profile. The equivalence in outcome suggested by this small study requires confirmation in a randomized trial.

Vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock: an evidence-based review.

OBJECTIVE: In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and to improve outcome in severe sepsis. DESIGN: The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. METHODS: The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591. CONCLUSION: An arterial catheter should be placed as soon as possible in patients with septic shock. Vasopressors are indicated to maintain mean arterial pressure of <65 mm Hg, both during and following adequate fluid resuscitation. Norepinephrine or dopamine are the vasopressors of choice in the treatment of septic shock. Norepinephrine may be combined with dobutamine when cardiac output is being measured. Epinephrine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin are not recommended as first-line agents in the treatment of septic shock. Vasopressin may be considered for salvage therapy. Low-dose dopamine is not recommended for the purpose of renal protection. Dobutamine is recommended as the agent of choice to increase cardiac output but should not be used for the purpose of increasing cardiac output above physiologic levels.

Case report: severe mercuric sulphate poisoning treated with 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulphonate and haemodiafiltration.

INTRODUCTION: Inorganic mercury poisoning is uncommon, but when it occurs it can result in severe, life-threatening features and acute renal failure. Previous reports on the use of extracorporeal procedures such as haemodialysis and haemoperfusion have shown no significant removal of mercury. We report here the successful use of the chelating agent 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulphonate (DMPS), together with continuous veno-venous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF), in a patient with severe inorganic mercury poisoning. CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old man presented with haematemesis after ingestion of 1 g mercuric sulphate and rapidly deteriorated in the emergency department, requiring intubation and ventilation. His initial blood mercury was 15 580 microg/l. At 4.5 hours after ingestion he was started on DMPS. He rapidly developed acute renal failure and so he was started on CVVHDF for renal support and in an attempt to improve mercury clearance; CVVHDF was continued for 14 days. METHODS: Regular ultradialysate and pre- and post-filtrate blood samples were taken and in addition all ultradialysate generated was collected to determine its mercury content. RESULTS: The total amount of mercury in the ultrafiltrate was 127 mg (12.7% of the ingested dose). The sieving coefficient ranged from 0.13 at 30-hours to 0.02 at 210-hours after ingestion. He developed no neurological features and was discharged from hospital on day 50. Five months after discharge from hospital he remained asymptomatic, with normal creatinine clearance. DISCUSSION: We describe a patient with severe inorganic mercury poisoning in whom full recovery occurred with the early use of the chelating agent DMPS and CVVHDF. There was removal of a significant amount of mercury by CVVHDF. CONCLUSION: We feel that CVVHDF should be considered in patients with inorganic mercury poisoning, particularly those who develop acute renal failure, together with meticulous supportive care and adequate doses of chelation therapy with DMPS.

Management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course requiring only brief hospitalization to a rapidly progressive, fulminant illness resulting in the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), with or without accompanying sepsis. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations regarding the management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: An international consensus conference was held in April 2004 to develop recommendations for the management of the critically ill patient with SAP. Evidence-based recommendations were developed by a jury of ten persons representing surgery, internal medicine, and critical care after conferring with experts and reviewing the pertinent literature to address specific questions concerning the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were a total of 23 recommendations developed to provide guidance to critical care clinicians caring for the patient with SAP. Topics addressed were as follows. 1) When should the patient admitted with acute pancreatitis be monitored in an ICU or stepdown unit? 2) Should patients with severe acute pancreatitis receive prophylactic antibiotics? 3) What is the optimal mode and timing of nutritional support for the patient with SAP? 4) What are the indications for surgery in acute pancreatitis, what is the optimal timing for intervention, and what are the roles for less invasive approaches including percutaneous drainage and laparoscopy? 5) Under what circumstances should patients with gallstone pancreatitis undergo interventions for clearance of the bile duct? 6) Is there a role for therapy targeting the inflammatory response in the patient with SAP? Some of the recommendations included a recommendation against the routine use of prophylactic systemic antibacterial or antifungal agents in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. The jury also recommended against pancreatic debridement or drainage for sterile necrosis, limiting debridement or drainage to those with infected pancreatic necrosis and/or abscess confirmed by radiologic evidence of gas or results or fine needle aspirate. Furthermore, the jury recommended that whenever possible, operative necrosectomy and/or drainage be delayed at least 2-3 wk to allow for demarcation of the necrotic pancreas. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement provides 23 different recommendations concerning the management of patients with SAP. These recommendations differ in several ways from previous recommendations because of the release of recent data concerning the management of these patients and also because of the focus on the critically ill patient. There are a number of important questions that could not be answered using an evidence-based approach, and areas in need of further research were identified.