Adverse effects of delayed antimicrobial treatment and surgical source control in adults with sepsis: results of a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Timely antimicrobial treatment and source control are strongly recommended by sepsis guidelines, however, their impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a planned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial conducted from July 2011 to May 2015 including forty German hospitals. All adult patients with sepsis treated in the participating ICUs were included. Primary exposures were timing of antimicrobial therapy and delay of surgical source control during the first 48 h after sepsis onset. Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Mixed models were used to investigate the effects of timing while adjusting for confounders. The linearity of the effect was investigated by fractional polynomials and by categorizing of timing. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 4792 patients receiving antimicrobial treatment and 1595 patients undergoing surgical source control. Fractional polynomial analysis identified a linear effect of timing of antimicrobials on 28-day mortality, which increased by 0.42% per hour delay (OR with 95% CI 1.019 [1.01, 1.028], p ≤ 0.001). This effect was significant in patients with and without shock (OR = 1.018 [1.008, 1.029] and 1.026 [1.01, 1.043], respectively). Using a categorized timing variable, there were no significant differences comparing treatment within 1 h versus 1-3 h, or 1 h versus 3-6 h. Delays of more than 6 h significantly increased mortality (OR = 1.41 [1.17, 1.69]). Delay in antimicrobials also increased risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock (OR per hour: 1.051 [1.022, 1.081], p ≤ 0.001). Time to surgical source control was significantly associated with decreased odds of successful source control (OR = 0.982 [0.971, 0.994], p = 0.003) and increased odds of death (OR = 1.011 [1.001, 1.021]; p = 0.03) in unadjusted analysis, but not when adjusted for confounders (OR = 0.991 [0.978, 1.005] and OR = 1.008 [0.997, 1.02], respectively). Only, among patients with septic shock delay of source control was significantly related to risk-of death (adjusted OR = 1.013 [1.001, 1.026], p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that management of sepsis is time critical both for antimicrobial therapy and source control. Also patients, who are not yet in septic shock, profit from early anti-infective treatment since it can prevent further deterioration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01187134 ). Registered 23 August 2010, NCT01187134.

Fever and hypothermia represent two populations of sepsis patients and are associated with outside temperature.

BACKGROUND: Fever and hypothermia have been observed in septic patients. Their influence on prognosis is subject to ongoing debates. METHODS: We did a secondary analysis of a large clinical dataset from a quality improvement trial. A binary logistic regression model was calculated to assess the association of the thermal response with outcome and a multinomial regression model to assess factors associated with fever or hypothermia. RESULTS: With 6542 analyzable cases we observed a bimodal temperature response characterized by fever or hypothermia, normothermia was rare. Hypothermia and high fever were both associated with higher lactate values. Hypothermia was associated with higher mortality, but this association was reduced after adjustment for other risk factors. Age, community-acquired sepsis, lower BMI and lower outside temperatures were associated with hypothermia while bacteremia and higher procalcitonin values were associated with high fever. CONCLUSIONS: Septic patients show either a hypothermic or a fever response. Whether hypothermia is a maladaptive response, as indicated by the higher mortality in hypothermic patients, or an adaptive response in patients with limited metabolic reserves under colder environmental conditions, remains an open question. Trial registration The original trial whose dataset was analyzed was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134) on August 23, 2010, the first patient was included on July 1, 2011.

[Preoperative fluid fasting : Establishment of a liberal fluid regimen using fasting cards]. / Präoperative Flüssigkeitskarenz : Etablierung eines liberalen Flüssigkeitsregimes mittels Nüchternheitskarten.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative fasting times for clear liquids surpass by far the recommendations of the specialist societies. The aim of this study was to introduce a liberal regimen for preoperative fasting of clear liquids using fasting cards as a training tool and to evaluate the implementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a liberalized regimen of preoperative clear fluid fasting times, which allows patients to drink water, apple juice, tea and coffee until being called to the operating theatre. Each patient receives a bed-side fasting card with written information specifying fasting times for solid food and liquids. Patients who are allowed to drink water, apple juice, tea and coffee until the call to the operating theatre receive a blue fasting card. Patients with coexisting diseases or conditions that can affect gastric emptying or who need longer fasting times because of the surgical procedure get a yellow fasting card on which fasting times for fluids and solids can be documented individually. Patients who need to be nil per os (for example patients with ileus or bowel obstruction, emergency care) receive a red fasting card. On the back of the card the information is written in English, Turkish, Russian and Arabic. After a period of 8 months all surgical ward managers were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess the implementation of the new fasting regimen. RESULTS: The response rate of the questionnaire was 100%. Without exception all interviewees would recommend the use of our liberalized fasting regimen. Almost all would also support the implementation of fasting cards. Out of 11 wards 9 found that patients were more relaxed and asked for intravenous fluids less often while waiting for surgery. The multilingual nature of the cards makes it easier to deal with patients who do not speak German. All ward managers consistently approved the new regimen in the event they themselves would need an operation. In order to make the fasting cards also usable in the future for rescue centers and functional units, such as endoscopy, echo or cardiac catheters, the reasons for fasting on the blue and yellow cards have been extended to operation or examination and on the red card to illness, operation or upcoming examination. CONCLUSION: Patients should be allowed to drink water and hypotonic clear fluids until shortly before an operation to avoid complications of overly long fasting times. Fasting cards help to implement this by providing easy to understand information for patients and healthcare workers. This concept should be clearly structured, transparent for everyone, written down and brought to the attention of the patient without a language barrier.

[Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Germany. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Sterblichkeit bei Sepsis und septischem Schock in Deutschland. Ergebnisse eines systematischen Reviews mit Metaanalyse.

BACKGROUND: The reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009. CONCLUSION: Our analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.

Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis and septic shock remain drivers for mortality in critically ill patients. The heterogeneity of the syndrome hinders the generation of reproducible numbers on mortality risks. Consequently, mortality rates range from 15 to 56%. We aimed to update and extend the existing knowledge from meta-analyses and estimate 30- and 90-day mortality rates for sepsis and septic shock separately, stratify rates by region and study type and assess mortality rates across different sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of articles published in PubMed or in the Cochrane Database, between 2009 and 2019 in English language including interventional and observational studies. A meta-analysis of pooled 28/30- and 90-day mortality rated separately for sepsis and septic shock was done using a random-effects model. Time trends were assessed via Joinpoint methodology and for the assessment of mortality rate over different SOFA scores, and linear regression was applied. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred records were identified. After title/abstract screening, 783 articles were assessed in full text for eligibility. Of those, 170 studies were included. Average 30-day septic shock mortality was 34.7% (95% CI 32.6-36.9%), and 90-day septic shock mortality was 38.5% (95% CI 35.4-41.5%). Average 30-day sepsis mortality was 24.4% (95% CI 21.5-27.2%), and 90-day sepsis mortality was 32.2% (95% CI 27.0-37.5%). Estimated mortality rates from RCTs were below prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Rates varied between regions, with 30-day septic shock mortality being 33.7% (95% CI 31.5-35.9) in North America, 32.5% (95% CI 31.7-33.3) in Europe and 26.4% (95% CI 18.1-34.6) in Australia. A statistically significant decrease of 30-day septic shock mortality rate was found between 2009 and 2011, but not after 2011. Per 1-point increase of the average SOFA score, average mortality increased by 1.8-3.3%. CONCLUSION: Trends of lower sepsis and continuous septic shock mortality rates over time and regional disparities indicate a remaining unmet need for improving sepsis management. Further research is needed to investigate how trends in the burden of disease influence mortality rates in sepsis and septic shock at 30- and 90-day mortality over time.

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.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Development of Shock Among Patients With Severe Sepsis: The HYPRESS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy is suggested by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign in refractory septic shock only. The efficacy of hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis without shock remains controversial. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone therapy in patients with severe sepsis prevents the development of septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted from January 13, 2009, to August 27, 2013, with a follow-up of 180 days until February 23, 2014. The trial was performed in 34 intermediate or intensive care units of university and community hospitals in Germany, and it included 380 adult patients with severe sepsis who were not in septic shock. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 either to receive a continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone for 5 days followed by dose tapering until day 11 (n = 190) or to receive placebo (n = 190). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was development of septic shock within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were time until septic shock, mortality in the intensive care unit or hospital, survival up to 180 days, and assessment of secondary infections, weaning failure, muscle weakness, and hyperglycemia (blood glucose level >150 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555]). Results: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 353 patients (64.9% male; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [14.4] years). Septic shock occurred in 36 of 170 patients (21.2%) in the hydrocortisone group and 39 of 170 patients (22.9%) in the placebo group (difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%; P = .70). No significant differences were observed between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups for time until septic shock; mortality in the intensive care unit or in the hospital; or mortality at 28 days (15 of 171 patients [8.8%] vs 14 of 170 patients [8.2%], respectively; difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.6% to 6.7%; P = .86), 90 days (34 of 171 patients [19.9%] vs 28 of 168 patients [16.7%]; difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 11.4%; P = .44), and 180 days (45 of 168 patients [26.8%] vs 37 of 167 patients [22.2%], respectively; difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, -4.6% to 13.7%; P = .32). In the hydrocortisone vs placebo groups, 21.5% vs 16.9% had secondary infections, 8.6% vs 8.5% had weaning failure, 30.7% vs 23.8% had muscle weakness, and 90.9% vs 81.5% had hyperglycemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with severe sepsis not in septic shock, use of hydrocortisone compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of septic shock within 14 days. These findings do not support the use of hydrocortisone in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00670254.

Inhaled nitric oxide does not reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome regardless of severity: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with inhaled nitric oxide improves oxygenation but not survival in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but the effect may depend on the severity of hypoxemia. Our objective was to determine whether nitric oxide reduces hospital mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) but not in patients with mild-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (100 < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg) at the time of randomization. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL electronic databases (inception to May 2013); proceedings from five conferences (to May 2013); and trial registries (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://www.controlled-trials.com). No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing nitric oxide with control (placebo or no gas) in mechanically ventilated adults or postneonatal children with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from included trials. Trial investigators provided subgroup data. Meta-analyses used within-trial subgroups and random-effects models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials (n = 1,142 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality was good. Nitric oxide did not reduce mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (risk ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.78-1.32]; p = 0.93; n = 329, six trials) or mild-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (risk ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.89-1.42]; p = 0.33; n = 740, seven trials). Risk ratios were similar between subgroups (interaction p = 0.53). There was no between-trial heterogeneity in any analysis (I = 0%). Varying the PaO2/FIO2 threshold between 70 and 200 mm Hg, in increments of 10 mm Hg, did not identify any threshold at which the nitric oxide-treated patients had lower mortality relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Nitric oxide does not reduce mortality in adults or children with acute respiratory distress syndrome, regardless of the degree of hypoxemia. Given the lack of related ongoing or recently completed randomized trials, new data addressing the effectiveness of nitric oxide in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe hypoxemia will not be available for the foreseeable future.

The effect of selenium therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sepsis syndrome commonly have low serum selenium levels. Several randomized controlled trials have examined the efficacy of selenium supplementation on mortality in patients with sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of high-dose selenium supplementation compared to placebo for the reduction of mortality in patients with sepsis. SOURCES OF DATA: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciFinder, and Clinicaltrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled parallel group trials comparing selenium supplementation in doses greater than daily requirement to placebo on the outcome of mortality in patients with sepsis syndrome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay, nosocomial pneumonia, and adverse events. Trial authors were contacted for additional or clarifying information. RESULTS: Nine trials enrolling a total of 792 patients were included. Selenium supplementation in comparison to placebo was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54, 0.98; p = 0.03; I = 0%). Among patients receiving and not receiving selenium, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (mean difference, 2.03; 95% CI, -0.51, 4.56; p = 0.12; I = 0%) or nosocomial pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.28, 2.49; p = 0.74; I = 56%). Significant heterogeneity among trials in adverse event reporting precluded pooling of results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with sepsis, selenium supplementation at doses higher than daily requirement may reduce mortality. We observed no impact of selenium on ICU length of stay or risk of nosocomial pneumonia.

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.

Goal-directed intraoperative fluid therapy guided by stroke volume and its variation in high-risk surgical patients: a prospective randomized multicentre study.

Perioperative hemodynamic optimisation improves postoperative outcome for patients undergoing high-risk surgery (HRS). In this prospective randomized multicentre study we studied the effects of an individualized, goal-directed fluid management based on continuous stroke volume variation (SVV) and stroke volume (SV) monitoring on postoperative outcomes. 64 patients undergoing HRS were randomized either to a control group (CON, n = 32) or a goal-directed group (GDT, n = 32). In GDT, SVV and SV were continuously monitored (FloTrac/Vigileo) and patients were brought to and maintained on the plateau of the Frank-Starling curve (SVV <10 % and SV increase <10 % in response to fluid loading). Organ dysfunction was assessed using the SOFA score and resource utilization using the TISS score. Patients were followed up to 28 days for postoperative complications. Main outcome measures were the number of complications (infectious, cardiac, respiratory, renal, hematologic and abdominal post-operative complications), maximum SOFA score and cumulative TISS score during ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and time until fit for discharge. 12 patients had to be excluded from final analysis (6 in each group). During surgery, GDT received more colloids than CON (1,589 vs. 927 ml, P < 0.05) and SVV decreased in GDT (from 9.0 to 8.0 %, P < 0.05) but not in CON. The number of postoperative wound infections was lower in GDT (0 vs. 7, P < 0.01). Although not statistically significant, the proportion of patients with at least one complication (46 vs. 62 %), the number of postoperative complications per patient (0.65 vs. 1.40), the maximum sofa score (5.9 vs. 7.2), and the cumulative TISS score (69 vs. 83) tended to be lower. This multicentre study shows that fluid management based on a SVV and SV optimisation protocol is feasible and decreases postoperative wound infections. Our findings also suggest that a goal-directed strategy might decrease postoperative organ dysfunction.

Evaluating the use of recombinant human activated protein C in adult severe sepsis: results of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

OBJECTIVE: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign developed guidelines for the administration of recombinant human activated protein C in adult severe sepsis. However, it is not clear how these impacted clinical practice or patient outcome. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign has developed an extensive database to assess the efficacy of the overall effect of its guidelines on clinical practice and patient outcome. From data submitted to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database from January 2005 through March 2008, we evaluated data regarding the administration of recombinant human activated protein C in adult severe sepsis. SUBJECTS: Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of patients with severe sepsis in the database, 1,009 of 15,022 (8%) received recombinant human activated protein C. Recombinant human activated protein C was administered within 24 hrs of the onset of sepsis in 76% (771 of 1009) of patients. Patients in North America (7.1%) and Europe (6.8%) were more likely to receive recombinant human activated protein C than patients in South America (4.2%, p<.001). After adjusting for covariates, the group that received recombinant human activated protein C had a significantly reduced associated hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.86, p<.001). Comparing all the patients who received recombinant human activated protein C to those who did not receive recombinant human activated protein C, the reduction in the adjusted hospital mortality was only statistically significant in patients who had multiorgan dysfunction (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.98, p=.027) vs. those who only had single organ dysfunction (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.59-1.02, p=.072). However, in patients who received recombinant human activated protein C before 24 hrs there was a reduction in adjusted hospital mortality in patients with only one organ dysfunction (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.9, p=.03) as well as patients with multiorgan dysfunction (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.94 p=.012). There was a statistically significant increase over time in the percentage compliance with the institution of a recombinant human activated protein C administration policy from the first, second, and eighth quarters (47.4%, 46.2%, and 60.7%, respectively) (p<.001). There was also a statistically significant increase in the actual administration rates of recombinant human activated protein C over the same timeline (p<.001), with administration rates of recombinant human activated protein C reaching 9.2% in the last quarter. CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant human activated protein C use was associated with a significant improvement in hospital mortality in patients who participated in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

Patterns and early evolution of organ failure in the intensive care unit and their relation to outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Recognition of patterns of organ failure may be useful in characterizing the clinical course of critically ill patients. We investigated the patterns of early changes in organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their relation to outcome. METHODS: Using the database from a large prospective European study, we studied 2,933 patients who had stayed more than 48 hours in the ICU and described patterns of organ failure and their relation to outcome. Patients were divided into three groups: patients without sepsis, patients in whom sepsis was diagnosed within the first 48 hours after ICU admission, and patients in whom sepsis developed more than 48 hours after admission. Organ dysfunction was assessed by using the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. RESULTS: A total of 2,110 patients (72% of the study population) had organ failure at some point during their ICU stay. Patients who exhibited an improvement in organ function in the first 24 hours after admission to the ICU had lower ICU and hospital mortality rates compared with those who had unchanged or increased SOFA scores (12.4 and 18.4% versus 19.6 and 24.5%, P < 0.05, pairwise). As expected, organ failure was more common in sepsis than in nonsepsis patients. In patients with single-organ failure, in-hospital mortality was greater in sepsis than in nonsepsis patients. However, in patients with multiorgan failure, mortality rates were similar regardless of the presence of sepsis. Irrespective of the presence of sepsis, delta SOFA scores over the first 4 days in the ICU were higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors and decreased significantly over time in survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Early changes in organ function are strongly related to outcome. In patients with single-organ failure, in-hospital mortality was higher in sepsis than in nonsepsis patients. However, in multiorgan failure, mortality rates were not influenced by the presence of sepsis.

Immunoglobulins in adult sepsis and septic shock.

For more than 30 years, intravenously administered immunoglobulins (ivIG) have been used to treat primary and secondary syndromes of immune deficiency. Increasing insight into pathomechanisms of severe sepsis and septic shock have led to the implementation of ivIG therapy in the strategies for adjunctive therapy in sepsis in both adults and children. Direct antitoxic effects, as well as indirect immunomodulatory mechanisms of ivIG have been described in the literature and were the basis for the rationale to use these substances in life-threatening infections and hyperinflammatory states. Several clinical trials have been performed, most of them as minor, investigator-initiated protocols. This review summarizes the results of clinical investigations and systematic meta-analyses that have implications for the development of therapeutic strategies, and international guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in adult patients.

A multifaceted educational intervention improved anti-infectious measures but had no effect on mortality in patients with severe sepsis.

Sepsis is a major reason for preventable hospital deaths. A cluster-randomized controlled trial on an educational intervention did not show improvements of sepsis management or outcome. We now aimed to test an improved implementation strategy in a second intervention phase in which new intervention hospitals (former controls) received a multifaceted educational intervention, while controls (former intervention hospitals) only received feedback of quality indicators. Changes in outcomes from the first to the second intervention phase were compared between groups using hierarchical generalized linear models controlling for possible confounders. During the two phases, 19 control hospitals included 4050 patients with sepsis and 21 intervention hospitals included 2526 patients. 28-day mortality did not show significant changes between study phases in both groups. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within one hour increased in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals. Taking at least two sets of blood cultures increased significantly in both groups. During phase 2, intervention hospitals showed higher proportion of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy and de-escalation within 5 days. A survey among involved clinicians indicated lacking resources for quality improvement. Therefore, quality improvement programs should include all elements of sepsis guidelines and provide hospitals with sufficient resources for quality improvement.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered 23 August 2010, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01187134 .

Use of IFNγ/IL10 Ratio for Stratification of Hydrocortisone Therapy in Patients With Septic Shock.

Large clinical trials testing hydrocortisone therapy in septic shock have produced conflicting results. Subgroups may benefit of hydrocortisone treatment depending on their individual immune response. We performed an exploratory analysis of the database from the international randomized controlled clinical trial Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) employing machine learning to a panel of 137 variables collected from the Berlin subcohort comprising 83 patients including demographic and clinical measures, organ failure scores, leukocyte counts and levels of circulating cytokines. The identified theranostic marker was validated against data from a cohort of the Hellenic Sepsis Study Group (HSSG) (n = 246), patients enrolled in the clinical trial of Sodium Selenite and Procalcitonin Guided Antimicrobial Therapy in Severe Sepsis (SISPCT, n = 118), and another, smaller clinical trial (Crossover study, n = 20). In addition, in vitro blood culture experiments and in vivo experiments in mouse models were performed to assess biological plausibility. A low serum IFNγ/IL10 ratio predicted increased survival in the hydrocortisone group whereas a high ratio predicted better survival in the placebo group. Using this marker for a decision rule, we applied it to three validation sets and observed the same trend. Experimental studies in vitro revealed that IFNγ/IL10 was negatively associated with the load of (heat inactivated) pathogens in spiked human blood and in septic mouse models. Accordingly, an in silico analysis of published IFNγ and IL10 values in bacteremic and non-bacteremic patients with the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome supported this association between the ratio and pathogen burden. We propose IFNγ/IL10 as a molecular marker supporting the decision to administer hydrocortisone to patients in septic shock. Prospective clinical studies are necessary and standard operating procedures need to be implemented, particularly to define a generic threshold. If confirmed, IFNγ/IL10 may become a suitable theranostic marker for an urging clinical need.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or "the Campaign") developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the intensive care unit, emergency department, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the United States, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were "bundled" into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 hrs and within 24 hrs. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008. SUBJECTS: A total of 15,022 subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 yrs (p < .0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 yrs (p = .008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37% to 30.8% over 2 yrs (p = .001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 yrs (95% confidence interval, 2.5-8.4). CONCLUSIONS: The Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts.