Medline ® Abstract for Reference 33
of 'Sepsis syndromes in adults: Epidemiology, definitions, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and prognosis'
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.
Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, Kumar A, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Nunnally ME, Rochwerg B, Rubenfeld GD, Angus DC, Annane D, Beale RJ, Bellinghan GJ, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith C, De Backer DP, French CJ, Fujishima S, Gerlach H, Hidalgo JL, Hollenberg SM, Jones AE, Karnad DR, Kleinpell RM, Koh Y, Lisboa TC, Machado FR, Marini JJ, Marshall JC, Mazuski JE, McIntyre LA, McLean AS, Mehta S, Moreno RP, Myburgh J, Navalesi P, Nishida O, Osborn TM, Perner A, Plunkett CM, Ranieri M, Schorr CA, Seckel MA, Seymour CW, Shieh L, Shukri KA, Simpson SQ, Singer M, Thompson BT, Townsend SR, Van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Wiersinga WJ, Zimmerman JL, Dellinger RP
Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):486.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis CampaignGuidelines 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.
1St. George's Hospital London, England, United Kingdom. 2New York University School of Medicine New York, NY. 3McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4Brown University School of Medicine Providence, RI. 5Instituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 6Vall d'Hebron University Hospital Barcelona, Spain. 7University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 8Emory University Hospital Atlanta, GA. 9Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center Jerusalem, Israel. 10Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11University of Pittsburgh Critical Care Medicine CRISMA Laboratory Pittsburgh, PA. 12Hospital Raymond Poincare Garches, France. 13Saint Thomas Hospital London, England, United Kingdom. 14University College London Hospitals London, England, United Kingdom. 15Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville, TN. 16Service de Reanimation Medicale Paris, France. 17CHIREC Hospitals Braine L'Alleud, Belgium. 18Western Hospital Victoria, Australia. 19Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 20Vivantes-Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany. 21Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital Belize Healthcare Partners Belize City, Belize. 22Cooper Health System Camden, NJ. 23University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson, MS. 24Jupiter Hospital Thane, India. 25Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL. 26ASAN Medical Center University of Ulsan College of Medicine Seoul, South Korea. 27Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre Porto Alegre, Brazil. 28Federal University of Sao Paulo Sao Paulo, Brazil. 29Regions Hospital St. Paul, MN. 30Saint Michael's Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 31Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO. 32Ottawa Hospital Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 33Nepean Hospital, University of Sydney Penrith, New South Wales, Australia. 34Mount Sinai Hospital Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 35UCINC, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal. 36University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 37Universitàdellla Magna Graecia Catanzaro, Italy. 38Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aich, Japan. 39Rigshospitalet Copenhagen, Denmark. 40UniversitàSapienza, Rome, Italy. 41Christiana Care Health Services Newark, DE. 42University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, PA. 43Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, CA. 44Kaust Medical Services Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. 45University of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, KS. 46Wolfson Institute of Biomedical Research London, England, United Kingdom. 47Massachusetts General Hospital Boston, MA. 48California Pacific Medical Center San Francisco, CA. 49University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands. 50ErasméUniversity Hospital Brussels, Belgium. 51University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 52Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX.