Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Evans L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8486643 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.
Evans Laura L Rhodes Andrew A Alhazzani Waleed W Antonelli Massimo M Coopersmith Craig M CM French Craig C Machado Flávia R FR Mcintyre Lauralyn L Ostermann Marlies M Prescott Hallie C HC Schorr Christa C Simpson Steven S Wiersinga W Joost WJ Alshamsi Fayez F Angus Derek C DC Arabi Yaseen Y Azevedo Luciano L Beale Richard R Beilman Gregory G Belley-Cote Emilie E Burry Lisa L Cecconi Maurizio M Centofanti John J Coz Yataco Angel A De Waele Jan J Dellinger R Phillip RP Doi Kent K Du Bin B Estenssoro Elisa E Ferrer Ricard R Gomersall Charles C Hodgson Carol C Møller Morten Hylander MH Iwashyna Theodore T Jacob Shevin S Kleinpell Ruth R Klompas Michael M Koh Younsuck Y Kumar Anand A Kwizera Arthur A Lobo Suzana S Masur Henry H McGloughlin Steven S Mehta Sangeeta S Mehta Yatin Y Mer Mervyn M Nunnally Mark M Oczkowski Simon S Osborn Tiffany T Papathanassoglou Elizabeth E Perner Anders A Puskarich Michael M Roberts Jason J Schweickert William W Seckel Maureen M Sevransky Jonathan J Sprung Charles L CL Welte Tobias T Zimmerman Janice J Levy Mitchell M
Intensive care medicine 20211002 11
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7095153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.DesignA panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.MethodsThe panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.ResultsThe panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified.ConclusionsA large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.
| S-EPMC7095013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the clinical practice guideline Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. The guideline serves as a useful bedside decision aid for clinicians managing adults with suspected and confirmed septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.
| S-EPMC9310818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.
| S-EPMC7095388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide recommendations on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. This review discusses what is new or different in the 2021 SSC adult sepsis guidelines compared to 2016. The guidelines include new weak recommendations for use of balanced fluid over saline 0.9%, use of intravenous corticosteroids for septic shock when there is ongoing vasopressor requirement, and peripheral initiation of intravenous vasopressors over delaying initiation in order to obtain central venous access. As before, there is a strong recommendation to initiate antimicrobials within 1 h of sepsis and septic shock, but there are now additional recommendations when the diagnosis is uncertain. The recommendation for initial fluid resuscitation in septic shock of 30 mL/kg crystalloid has been downgraded from strong to weak. Finally, there are 12 new recommendations addressing long-term outcomes from sepsis, including strong recommendations to screen for economic and social support and to make referrals for follow-up where available; use shared decision-making in post-intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge planning; reconcile medications at both ICU and hospital discharge; provide information about sepsis and its sequelae in written and verbal hospital discharge summary; and to provide assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC10246868 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6811369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines has effectively reduced sepsis mortality. The effects of hospital level and ownership on compliance with the SSC guideline 1-hour bundle (Cssc-1h) are unclear. We designed this study to identify the differences in Cssc-1h between secondary and tertiary hospitals, public hospitals, and private hospitals.MethodsIn this survey, 1,420 hospitals were enrolled, including 864 public tertiary hospitals, 482 public secondary hospitals, 34 private tertiary hospitals, 40 private secondary hospitals. The data were collected between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. The outcomes were adherence to the SSC guidelines (2018 update). Monitoring indicators include 1-hour bundle and its sub-indicators (measure lactate level and remeasure lactate level if initial lactate is >2 mmol/L, obtain blood cultures before administering antibiotics, administer broad-spectrum antibiotics, begin rapid administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L, apply vasopressor if hypotension is present during or after fluid resuscitation to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg). Every monitoring indicator was stratified by the median, which is defined as 1 if greater than or equal to the median, and 0 if not.ResultsCssc-1h in tertiary hospitals was significantly higher than in secondary hospitals (P<0.05). However, there were no statistical differences in Cssc-1h in public hospitals and private hospitals.ConclusionsCssc-1h in tertiary hospitals was significantly better than that in secondary hospitals. There is an urgent need to improve Cssc-1h in secondary hospitals. The increase in private hospitals will not reduce Cssc-1h.
| S-EPMC7944336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite recent advances and global improvements in sepsis recognition and supportive care, mortality rates remain high, and adherence to sepsis bundle components in Korea is low. To address this, the Korean Sepsis Alliance, affiliated with the Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine, developed the first sepsis treatment guidelines for Korea based on a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA de novo method was used to develop the guidelines. Methodologies included determining key questions, conducting a literature search and selection, assessing the risk of bias, synthesizing evidence, and developing recommendations. The certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. Draft recommendations underwent internal and external review processes and public hearings. The development of these guidelines was supported by a research grant from the Korean Disease Control and Prevention Agency.ResultsIn these guidelines, we focused on early treatments for adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. Through the guideline development process, 12 key questions and their respective recommendations were formulated. These include lactate measurement, fluid therapies, target blood pressure, antibiotic administration, use of vasopressors and dobutamine, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and echocardiography.ConclusionsThese guidelines aim to support medical professionals in making appropriate decisions about treating adult sepsis and septic shock. We hope these guidelines will increase awareness of sepsis and reduce its mortality rate.
| S-EPMC11617831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7101866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.MethodsWe formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.ConclusionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
| S-EPMC7176264 | biostudies-literature