Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Mechanical ventilation in septic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature on mechanical ventilation strategies in patients with septic shock. RECENT FINDINGS: Indirect clinical trial evidence has refined the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Weaning strategies and devices have also been recently evaluated. The role of lung protective ventilation in patients with healthy lungs, while recognized, still needs to be further refined. The possible detrimental effects of spontaneous breathing in patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome is increasingly recognized, but clinical trial evidence is still lacking to confirm this hypothesis. A new concept of lung and diaphragm protective is emerging in the critical care literature, but its application will need a complex intervention implementation approach to allow adequate scrutiny of this concept and uptake by clinicians. SUMMARY: Many advances in the management of the mechanically ventilated patient with sepsis and septic shock have occurred in recent years, but clinical trial evidence is still necessary to translate new hypotheses to the bedside and find the right balance between benefits and risks of these new strategies.

Evidence-Based Checklist to Delay Cardiac Arrest in Brain-Dead Potential Organ Donors: The DONORS Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of goal-directed care to reduce loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist in the clinical management of brain-dead potential donors in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Donation Network to Optimize Organ Recovery Study (DONORS) was an open-label, parallel-group cluster randomized clinical trial in Brazil. Enrollment and follow-up were conducted from June 20, 2017, to November 30, 2019. Hospital ICUs that reported 10 or more brain deaths in the previous 2 years were included. Consecutive brain-dead potential donors in the ICU aged 14 to 90 years with a condition consistent with brain death after the first clinical examination were enrolled. Participants were randomized to either the intervention group or the control group. The intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from June 15 to August 30, 2020. Interventions: Hospital staff in the intervention group were instructed to administer to brain-dead potential donors in the intervention group an evidence-based checklist with 13 clinical goals and 14 corresponding actions to guide care, every 6 hours, from study enrollment to organ retrieval. The control group provided or received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest at the individual level. A prespecified sensitivity analysis assessed the effect of adherence to the checklist in the intervention group. Results: Among the 1771 brain-dead potential donors screened in 63 hospitals, 1535 were included. These patients included 673 males (59.2%) and had a median (IQR) age of 51 (36.3-62.0) years. The main cause of brain injury was stroke (877 [57.1%]), followed by trauma (485 [31.6%]). Of the 63 hospitals, 31 (49.2%) were assigned to the intervention group (743 [48.4%] brain-dead potential donors) and 32 (50.8%) to the control group (792 [51.6%] brain-dead potential donors). Seventy potential donors (9.4%) at intervention hospitals and 117 (14.8%) at control hospitals met the primary outcome (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.08; P = .11). The primary outcome rate was lower in those with adherence higher than 79.0% than in the control group (5.3% vs 14.8%; RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial was inconclusive in determining whether the overall use of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist reduced brain-dead potential donor loss to cardiac arrest. The findings suggest that use of such a checklist has limited effectiveness without adherence to the actions recommended in this checklist. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03179020.

The epidemiology of sepsis in Brazilian intensive care units (the Sepsis PREvalence Assessment Database, SPREAD): an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The sepsis burden on acute care services in middle-income countries is a cause for concern. We estimated incidence, prevalence, and mortality of sepsis in adult Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) and association of ICU organisational factors with outcome. METHODS: We did a 1-day point prevalence study with follow-up of patients in ICU with sepsis in a nationally representative pseudo-random sample. We produced a sampling frame initially stratified by geographical region. Each stratum was then stratified by hospitals' main source of income (serving general public vs privately insured individuals) and ICU size (ten or fewer beds vs more than ten beds), finally generating 40 strata. In each stratum we selected a random sample of ICUs so as to enrol the total required beds in 1690 Brazilian adult ICUs. We followed up patients until hospital discharge censored at 60 days, estimated incidence from prevalence and length of stay, and generated national estimates. We assessed mortality prognostic factors using random-effects logistic regression models. FINDINGS: On Feb 27, 2014, 227 (72%) of 317 ICUs that were randomly selected provided data on 2632 patients, of whom 794 had sepsis (30·2 septic patients per 100 ICU beds, 95% CI 28·4-31·9). The ICU sepsis incidence was 36·3 per 1000 patient-days (95% CI 29·8-44·0) and mortality was observed in 439 (55·7%) of 788 patients (95% CI 52·2-59·2). Low availability of resources (odds ratio [OR] 1·67, 95% CI 1·02-2·75, p=0·045) and adequacy of treatment (OR 0·56, 0·37-0·84, p=0·006) were independently associated with mortality. The projected incidence rate is 290 per 100 000 population (95% CI 237·9-351·2) of adult cases of ICU-treated sepsis per year, which yields about 420 000 cases annually, of whom 230 000 die in hospital. INTERPRETATION: The incidence, prevalence, and mortality of ICU-treated sepsis is high in Brazil. Outcome varies considerably, and is associated with access to adequate resources and treatment. Our results show the burden of sepsis in resource-limited settings, highlighting the need to establish programmes aiming for sepsis prevention, early diagnosis, and adequate treatment. FUNDING: Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).

Association between early glycemic control and improvements in markers of coagulation and fibrinolysis in patients with septic shock-induced stress hyperglycemia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the coagulation and inflammatory profiles in septic shock patients with baseline hyperglycemia under glycemic control. METHODS: Prospective, observational study conducted in an intensive care unit of a university hospital, including 41 septic shock nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia (n = 21) or normoglycemia (n = 20) profiles at baseline. Hyperglycemic patients received a glucose control protocol (target glycemia, <150 mg/dL). Metabolic, inflammatory, and coagulation markers were measured at baseline and after 24 hours. RESULTS: Median glycemic values between groups were different at baseline but not after 24 hours. Baseline coagulation profile was similar in both groups with elevated levels of coagulation markers, reduced factor VII, protein C, and antithrombin activities and fibrinolysis impairment. Normoglycemic patients had unchanged coagulation markers after 24 hours. After treatment, previously hyperglycemic patients exhibited increased plasminogen concentrations (P = .03) and reduced levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (P = .01) and tissue plasminogen activator (P = .03) as compared with baseline. They also had higher factor VII (P = .03), protein C (P = .04), and antithrombin (P = .04) activities than normoglycemic patients. Inflammatory markers were elevated in both groups and improved after 24 hours, independently of the glycemic profile. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control during septic shock is associated with improvements in coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters compared with baseline and normoglycemic patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe respiratory failure in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory failure is still a matter of debate. METHODS: We performed a structured search on Pubmed, EMBASE, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials and observational case-control studies with severity-paired patients, evaluating the use of ECMO on severe acute respiratory failure in adult patients. A random-effect model using DerSimonian and Laird method for variance estimator was performed to evaluate the effect of ECMO use on hospital mortality. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with Cochran's Q statistic and Higgin's I(2). RESULTS: Three studies were included on the metanalysis, comprising 353 patients in the main analysis, in which 179 patients were ECMO supported. One study was a randomized controlled trial and two were observational studies with a propensity score matching. The most common reason for acute respiratory failure was influenza H1N1 pneumonia (45%) and pneumonia (33%). ECMO was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality (OR = 0.71; CI 95% = 0.34 - 1.47; P = 0.358). If alternative severity-pairing method presented by the two observational studies was included, a total of 478 cases were included, in which 228 received ECMO support. In the former analysis, ECMO had a benefit on hospital mortality (OR = 0.52; CI 95% = 0.35 - 0.76; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation benefit on hospital mortality is unclear. Results were sensitive to statistical analysis, and no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the available data. More studies are needed before the widespread use of ECMO can be recommended.