Epidemiology and patterns of empiric antimicrobial therapy practice in patients with community-onset sepsis using data from a Japanese nationwide medical claims database-the Japan Sepsis Alliance (JaSA) study group.

Objectives: We aimed to describe empiric antimicrobial options for patients with community-onset sepsis using nationwide real-world data from Japan. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used nationwide Japanese data from a medical reimbursement system database. Patients aged ≥20 years with both presumed infections and acute organ dysfunction who were admitted to hospitals from the outpatient department or emergency department between 2010 and 2017 were enrolled. We described the initial choices of antimicrobials for patients with sepsis stratified by intensive care unit (ICU) or ward. Results: There were 1,195,741 patients with community-onset sepsis; of these, 1,068,719 and 127,022 patients were admitted to the wards and ICU, respectively. Third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenem were most commonly used for patients with community-onset sepsis. We found that 1.7% and 6.0% of patients initially used antimicrobials for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage in the wards and ICU, respectively. Although half of the patients initially used antipseudomonal agents, only a few patients used a combination of antipseudomonal agents. Moreover, few patients initially used a combination of antimicrobials to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas sp. Conclusion: Third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenem were most frequently used for patients with sepsis. A combination therapy of antimicrobials for drug-resistant bacteria coverage was rarely provided to these patients.

Association between hospital spending and in-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis based on a Japanese nationwide medical claims database study.

Background: The effect of hospital spending on the mortality rate of patients with sepsis has not yet been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that hospitals that consume more medical resources would have lower mortality rates among patients with sepsis. Methods: This retrospective study used administrative data from 2010 to 2017. The enrolled hospitals were divided into quartiles based on average daily medical cost per sepsis case. The primary and secondary outcomes were the average in-hospital mortality rate of patients with sepsis and the effective cost per survivor among the enrolled hospitals, respectively. A multiple regression model was used to determine the significance of the differences among hospital categories to adjust for baseline imbalances. Results: Among 997 hospitals enrolled in this study, the crude in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% and 13.2% in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital spending, respectively. After adjusting for confounding factors, the highest hospital spending group demonstrated a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate than the lowest hospital spending group (coefficient = -0.025, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.034 to -0.015; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the highest hospital spending group was associated with a significantly higher effective cost per survivor than the lowest hospital spending group (coefficient = 77.7, 95% CI 73.1 to 82.3; p < 0.0001). In subgroup analyses, hospitals with a small or medium number of beds demonstrated a consistent pattern with the primary test, whereas those with a large number of beds or academic affiliations displayed no association. Conclusions: Using a nationwide Japanese medical claims database, this study indicated that hospitals with greater expenditures were associated with a superior survival rate and a higher effective cost per survivor in patients with sepsis than those with lower expenditures. In contrast, no correlations between hospital spending and mortality were observed in hospitals with a large number of beds or academic affiliations.

Comprehensive validation of early diagnostic algorithms for myocardial infarction in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate diagnostic algorithms for myocardial infarction using a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with suspected myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation from nine emergency departments in Japan. The diagnostic algorithms evaluated a) based on hs-cTnI alone, such as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h or 0/2-h and High-STEACS pathways; or b) used medical history and physical findings, such as the ADAPT, EDACS, HEART, and GRACE pathways. We evaluated the negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity as safety measures, and proportion of patients classified as low or high-risk as an efficiency measure for a primary outcome of type 1 myocardial infarction or cardiac death within 30 days. RESULTS: We included 437 patients, and the hs-cTnI was collected at 0 and 1 hours in 407 patients and at 0 and 2 hours in 394. The primary outcome occurred in 8.1% (33/407) and 6.9% (27/394) of patients, respectively. All the algorithms classified low-risk patients without missing those with the primary outcome, except for the GRACE pathway. The hs-cTnI-based algorithms classified more patients as low-risk: the ESC 0/1-h 45.7%; the ESC 0/2-h 50.5%; the High-STEACS pathway 68.5%, than those using history and physical findings (15-30%). The High-STEACS pathway ruled out more patients (20.5%) by hs-cTnI measurement at 0 hours than the ESC 0/1-h and 0/2-h algorithms (7.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The hs-cTnI algorithms, especially the High-STEACS pathway, had excellent safety performance for the early diagnosis of myocardial infarction and offered the greatest improvement in efficiency.

Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign.

INTRODUCTION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes. METHODS: The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or national burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC participants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported. RESULTS: The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for sepsis in burn patients. They should be updated on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients.

Mortality analysis among sepsis patients in and out of intensive care units using the Japanese nationwide medical claims database: a study by the Japan Sepsis Alliance study group.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of sepsis patients require specialized care, including multidisciplinary care, close monitoring, and artificial organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the efficacy of ICU management on clinical outcomes remains insufficiently researched. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that ICU admission would increase the survival rate among sepsis patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using the nationwide medical claims database of sepsis patients in Japan from 2010 to 2017 with propensity score matching to adjust for baseline imbalances. Patients aged over 20 years, with a combined diagnosis of presumed serious infection and organ failure, were included in this study. The primary outcome studied was the in-hospital mortality among non-ICU and ICU patients. In addition to propensity score matching, we performed a multivariable logistic regression analysis for the primary outcome. As the treatment policy was not extracted from the database, we performed sensitivity analyses to determine mortality differences in adults (20 ≤ age ≤ 64), independent patients, patients without malignant tumors, based on the assumption that treatment intensity is likely to increase in those population. RESULTS: Among 1,167,901 sepsis patients (974,289 in non-ICU and 193,612 in ICU settings), the unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 22.5% among non-ICU patients and 26.2% among ICU patients (3.7% [95% CI 3.5-3.9]). After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality was 29.2% among non-ICU patients and 25.8% among ICU patients ([Formula: see text] 3.4% [95% CI [Formula: see text] 3.7 to [Formula: see text] 3.1]). In-hospital mortality with a multivariable regression analysis ([Formula: see text] 5.0% [95% CI [Formula: see text] 5.2 to [Formula: see text] 4.8]) was comparable with the results of the propensity score matching analysis. In the sensitivity analyses, the mortality differences between non-ICU and ICU in adults, independent patients, and patients without malignant tumors were [Formula: see text] 2.7% [95% CI [Formula: see text] 3.3 to [Formula: see text] 2.2], [Formula: see text] 5.8% [95% CI [Formula: see text] 6.4 to [Formula: see text] 5.2], and [Formula: see text] 1.3% [95% CI [Formula: see text] 1.7 to [Formula: see text] 1.0], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, using the nationwide medical claims database, we demonstrated that ICU admission was potentially associated with decreasing in-hospital mortality among sepsis patients. Further investigations are warranted to validate these results and elucidate the mechanisms favoring ICU management on clinical outcomes.

Short- versus long-course antibiotic therapy for sepsis: a post hoc analysis of the nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with bacterial sepsis remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of a shorter course of antibiotics on 28-day mortality in comparison with a longer course using a national database in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis from the retrospective observational study of patients with sepsis using a Japanese claims database from 2010 to 2017. The patient dataset was divided into short-course (≤ 7 days) and long-course (≥ 8 days) groups according to the duration of initial antibiotic administration. Subsequently, propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline imbalance between the two groups. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were re-initiated antibiotics at 3 and 7 days, during hospitalization, administration period, antibiotic-free days, and medical cost. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 448,146 pairs were analyzed. The 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the short-course group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95; P < 0.001), while the occurrence of re-initiated antibiotics at 3 and 7 days and during hospitalization were significantly higher in the short-course group (P < 0.001). Antibiotic-free days (median [IQR]) were significantly shorter in the long-course group (21 days [17 days, 23 days] vs. 17 days [14 days, 19 days], P < 0.001), and short-course administration contributed to a decrease in medical costs (coefficient $-212, 95% CI; - 223 to - 201, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed a significant decrease in the 28-day mortality of the patients in the short-course group in patients of male sex (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% CI; 0.89-0.93), community-onset sepsis (hazard ratio; 0.95, 95% CI; 0.93-0.98), abdominal infection (hazard ratio; 0.92, 95% CI; 0.88-0.97) and heart infection (hazard ratio; 0.74, 95% CI; 0.61-0.90), while a significant increase was observed in patients with non-community-onset sepsis (hazard ratio; 1.09, 95% CI; 1.06-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the short-course group, even though there was a higher rate of re-initiated antibiotics in the short course.

Temporal trends of medical cost and cost-effectiveness in sepsis patients: a Japanese nationwide medical claims database.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is the leading cause of death worldwide. Although the mortality of sepsis patients has been decreasing over the past decade, the trend of medical costs and cost-effectiveness for sepsis treatment remains insufficiently determined. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using the nationwide medical claims database of sepsis patients in Japan between 2010 and 2017. After selecting sepsis patients with a combined diagnosis of presumed serious infection and organ failure, patients over the age of 20 were included in this study. We investigated the annual trend of medical costs during the study period. The primary outcome was the annual trend of the effective cost per survivor, calculated from the gross medical cost and number of survivors per year. Subsequently, we performed subgroup and multiple regression analyses to evaluate the association between the annual trend and medical costs. RESULTS: Among 50,490,128 adult patients with claims, a total of 1,276,678 patients with sepsis were selected from the database. Yearly gross medical costs to treat sepsis gradually increased over the decade from $3.04 billion in 2010 to $4.38 billion in 2017, whereas the total medical cost per hospitalization declined (rate = - $1075/year, p < 0.0001). While the survival rate of sepsis patients improved during the study period, the effective cost per survivor significantly decreased (rate = - $1806/year [95% CI - $2432 to - $1179], p = 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the trend of decreasing medical cost per hospitalization remained consistent among the subpopulation of age, sex, and site of infection. After adjusting for age, sex (male), number of chronic diseases, site of infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, surgery, and length of hospital stay, the admission year was significantly associated with reduced medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated an improvement in annual cost-effectiveness in patients with sepsis between 2010 and 2017. The annual trend of reduced costs was consistent after adjustment with the confounders altering hospital expenses.

Treatment of acute hypernatremia caused by sodium overload in adults: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid-onset, acute hypernatremia caused by sodium overload is a rare, life-threatening condition. Although experts recommend rapid correction of sodium concentration [Na] based on pathophysiological theories, only a few reports have documented the specific details of sodium correction methods. The objective of this study was to systematically review the reported treatment regimens, achieved [Na] correction rates, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Ichushi-database, and references without language restrictions, from inception to January 2021, were searched for studies that described ≥1 adult (aged ≥18 years) patients with rapid-onset hypernatremia caused by sodium overload, whose treatment was initiated ≤12 hours from the onset. The primary outcome of interest was the [Na] correction rate associated with mortality. RESULTS: Eighteen case reports (18 patients; median [Na], 180.5 mEq/L) were included. The cause of sodium overload was self-ingestion in 8 patients and iatrogenic sodium gain in 10 patients; baseline [Na] and symptoms at presentation were comparable for both groups. Individualized rapid infusion of dextrose-based solutions was the most commonly adopted fluid therapy, whereas hemodialysis was also used for patients already treated with hemodialysis. The correction rates were more rapid in 13 successfully treated patients than in 5 fatal patients. The successfully treated patients typically achieved [Na] ≤160 within 8 hours, [Na] ≤150 within 24 hours, and [Na] ≤145 within 48 hours. Hyperglycemia was a commonly observed treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: The limited empirical evidence derived from case reports appears to endorse the recommended, rapid, and aggressive sodium correction using dextrose-based hypotonic solutions.

Trends in the incidence and outcome of sepsis using data from a Japanese nationwide medical claims database-the Japan Sepsis Alliance (JaSA) study group.

BACKGROUND: Trends in the incidence and outcomes of sepsis using a Japanese nationwide database were investigated. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Adult patients, who had both presumed serious infections and acute organ dysfunction, between 2010 and 2017 were extracted using a combined method of administrative and electronic health record data from the Japanese nationwide medical claim database, which covered 71.5% of all acute care hospitals in 2017. Presumed serious infection was defined using blood culture test records and antibiotic administration. Acute organ dysfunction was defined using records of diagnosis according to the international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, and records of organ support. The primary outcomes were the annual incidence of sepsis and death in sepsis per 1000 inpatients. The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality rate and length of hospital stay in patients with sepsis. RESULTS: The analyzed dataset included 50,490,128 adult inpatients admitted between 2010 and 2017. Of these, 2,043,073 (4.0%) patients had sepsis. During the 8-year period, the annual proportion of patients with sepsis across inpatients significantly increased (slope = + 0.30%/year, P < 0.0001), accounting for 4.9% of the total inpatients in 2017. The annual death rate of sepsis per 1000 inpatients significantly increased (slope = + 1.8/1000 inpatients year, P = 0.0001), accounting for 7.8 deaths per 1000 inpatients in 2017. The in-hospital mortality rate and median (interquartile range) length of hospital stay significantly decreased (P < 0.001) over the study period and were 18.3% and 27 (15-50) days in 2017, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Japanese nationwide data indicate that the annual incidence of sepsis and death in inpatients with sepsis significantly increased; however, the annual mortality rates and length of hospital stay in patients with sepsis significantly decreased. The increasing incidence of sepsis and death in sepsis appear to be a significant and ongoing issue.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020).

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020).

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The incidence of toxic shock syndrome due to nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in burn patients: A four-year retrospective cohort study.

Among adult and pediatric patients, concern is growing in regard to toxic shock syndrome (TSS) resulting from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial infection. We investigated the incidence and characteristics of this form of TSS in patients with burn injury who were admitted to our burn care units from January 2008 to December 2011. Of the 244 patients with nosocomial MRSA infection admitted during the study period, TSS occurred in 20 (8.2%) patients whose average age was 42.9 years, average total burn surface area (TBSA) was 31.7%, and average day of TSS appearance was 9.5 days after injury. There were no particular characteristics associated with age, TBSA or day of TSS appearance in these patients. All but 1 patient recovered from TSS within an average of 9.4 days. The incidence of TSS due to nosocomial MRSA infection in these burn patients was higher than expected. TSS due to nosocomial MRSA infection should be considered in burn care.

Rapidly progressive acute necrotizing encephalopathy associated with influenza A in an elderly adult.

BACKGROUND: Among the influenza-associated encephalopathies, acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) has a particularly poor prognosis. While it usually progresses within 48 h, we encountered a rapidly evolving case with the patient falling into coma from lucidity within 10 min. CASE PRESENTATION: A 71-year-old man was found unconscious after taking a 10-min bath and brought to the emergency room. The head computed tomography (HCT) was normal, and he was diagnosed with heatstroke as a complication of influenza A. Despite effective therapy to correct his temperature, his consciousness did not improve, and within 24 h he progressed to multiple organ injury. Repeat HCT and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging revealed irreparably progressed ANE. CONCLUSION: To effectively treat ANE, early recognition and diagnosis are critical. Our case suggests that ANE should be considered and added to the differential diagnosis for adult patients with rapid cognitive deterioration.

CHARACTERISTICS and considerations in the medical treatment of COVID-19 in children.

It is rare for children to be in serious condition or die from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) except for those with underlying diseases such as chronic lung disease (including asthma), cardiovascular disease, and immunosuppressive disease. Recently, patients with hyperinflammatory shock have been identified among children who are confirmed to have or are suspected of having SARS-CoV-2 infection. The presenting signs and symptoms are characterized by prolonged fever, abdominal pain, and cardiac involvement without any signs of pneumonia on chest computed tomography. However, it is uncertain at this time whether SARS-CoV-2 infection affects this syndrome. Compared with adults, quite a few children are asymptomatic even when infected with SARS-CoV-2, which could make these children serious sources of infection at home or in medical institutions. Considering these characteristics, it is important to take appropriate precautions during medical examinations and perform infection control in emergency departments to save the lives of both the children and adult patients. Most healthy children are suffering from huge stress due to restrictions against going outside and school closures as social means to control infection. It is possible that children are socially isolated when they come to the emergency department, and they might require mental or social support even if they are only complaining about their physical condition. Health-care providers are required to examine the children's circumstances carefully and cooperate with workers in other professions appropriately.

The anticoagulant treatment for sepsis induced disseminated intravascular coagulation; network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits and harm caused by anticoagulant treatments for sepsis induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) remain unclear. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to assess the effect of available anticoagulant treatments on patient mortality, DIC resolution and the incidence of bleeding complication in patients with septic DIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We considered all studies from four recent systematic reviews and searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases for other studies that investigated anticoagulant treatment for septic DIC using antithrombin, thrombomodulin, heparin, or protease inhibitors in adult critically ill patients. These four anticoagulants and placebo were compared. The primary outcome in this study was patient mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the DIC resolution rate and incidence of bleeding complications. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 1340 patients from nine studies. There were no significant differences in the risks of mortality and bleeding complications among all direct comparisons and the network meta-analysis. Using a placebo was associated with a significantly lower rate of DIC resolution, compared to antithrombin in the direct comparison (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20, 95% credible interval [95% CrI]: 0.046-0.81) and in the network meta-analysis (OR: 0.20, 95% CrI: 0.043-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed no significant differences in the risks for mortality and bleeding complications when a placebo and all four anticoagulants were compared in septic DIC patients. The results also indicated that antithrombin was associated with a five-fold higher likelihood of DIC resolution, compared to placebo.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine. METHODS: Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. RESULTS: A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016).

Background and Purpose: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. Methods: Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. Results: A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs. Conclusions: Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (JSSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within eachteam were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a twothirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in additionto ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement.We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.