Intensive Care Medicine

To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. 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. 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. 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. 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.

The safety of using heparin concomitantly with drotrecogin alfa (activated) {DrotAA} was explored in the XPRESS study. No heparin effect on mortality was observed. Safety results from that study are explored in more detail. A randomized, double-blind trial of prophylactic heparin versus placebo in severe sepsis patients treated with DrotAA (24 μg/(kg h) for 96 h) was conducted at 224 sites in 20 countries. Patients were randomized 1:1:2 to receive unfractionated heparin (UFH) (5,000 Units twice daily) (n = 511), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (enoxaparin, 40 mg per day) (n = 493), or placebo (n = 990) every 12 h during the DrotAA infusion. Bleeding events during the DrotAA infusion period (Days 0–6) were higher in the heparin than placebo groups (10.8 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.049), but serious bleeding events were similar (heparin 2.3% vs. placebo 2.5%; p = 0.72) and central nervous system (CNS) bleeds were rare in both groups (0.3 vs. 0.3%). Fewer heparin patients experienced an ischemic stroke during infusion (0.3 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.018) and 28-day period (0.5 vs. 1.8%; p = 0.009). Coadministration of DrotAA with low-dose heparin in severe sepsis patients did not increase incidence of serious bleeding. Fewer ischemic strokes in the heparin group suggest heparin cessation should be avoided during DrotAA infusion.

Modern intensive care combined with current improvements in the specific, systemic and local therapy of burns has delayed the mortal effects of severe burns. Nor has there been any significant improvement in this mortality during the last decade. The occurrence of uncontrollable infection and sepsis due to gram-negative bacteria or fungi as the basic cause of death was not a satisfactory explanation. So, progress should only be expected from a new concept in burn treatment. This new concept should be to view the burn disease as being caused by toxic factors induced by thermal injury to the skin. Electron-microscope studies in mice and rats have revealed similar mitochondrial alterations in hepatocytes after either a sublethal controlled burn injury or an intraperiotoneal application of an equivalent dose, of a cutaneous burn toxin. The intraperitoneal injection of different amounts of the burn toxin indicated, that the extent of the mitochondrial changes correlated directly with the dose of toxin. Investigations of liver metabolism suggested an inhibition of the oxygenation chain. The incubation of isolated liver cells together with the burn toxin demonstrated by scanning electron microscopy a direct cytotoxic effect of the burn toxin. In animal tests the pathogenic effect of the burn toxin could be prevented by treatment with an antitoxic IgG generated in sheep. The fatal sepsis of severely burned patients is the consequence of a decreased host defence against infections, which is caused by a primary and general toxic alteration of the whole organism. One important aspect of treatment should therefore be the elimination of burn toxins. To achieve this management should include primary excision of the burns, local application of nonabsorbable protein-complex-binding substances and specific passive immuno-therapy with an antitoxic IgG.

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010, and to compare it with a previous review of RCTs published from 1975 to 2000. We assessed the quality of reporting of randomization, blinding and participant flow, both individually and combined within the Jadad scale, and compared them with findings from our previous review. For RCTs published from 2001 to 2010, we also evaluated the frequency of distorted finding presentation (spin) and inflated predicted treatment effect (delta inflation). In the 221 RCTs from 2001 to 2010, the sample size was significantly larger than in the older series, and there was a higher proportion of studies with negative findings. Reporting of the rationale for sample size estimation and allocation concealment increased significantly, but reporting of other important individual methodological components did not change substantially compared with the previous period and remained low. Among RCTs from 2001 to 2010, a spin strategy was used in 69 of 111 RCTs with statistically negative results, while delta inflation was present in 7 of 11 RCTs evaluating survival as a primary outcome. Papers with higher Jadad scores were cited more often than the others. Quality of reporting of RCTs published in Intensive Care Medicine has only partly improved over time, and spin and delta bias are of frequent occurrence. There is a need for stronger adherence to CONSORT recommendations, with special emphasis on accurate description of randomization and blindness, and correct reporting of statistically non-significant results.

Both serum levels of tumor necrosis factr-α (TNFα) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) and blood lactate levels in patients with septic shock have been shown to correlate with prognosis. The aim of the study was to define the relative predictive value of these measures. 38 hospitalized patients with septic shock, including 18 survivors and 20 non-survivors.Intervention: Blood TNFα (immunoradiometric assay), IL-6 (bioassay) and lactate (enzymatic method) levels were serally measured at the onset of septic shock and after 24 and 48 h. TNFα levels tended to be higher in the non-surviors than in the survivors at the onset of shock (204±392 vs 129±195 pg/ml,p-NS) but decreased similary in both goups with time (p=0.03). IL-6 levels at admission, were highly variable (9656±19851 U/ml in the non-surviours and 69222±248804 U/ml in the survivors). Log IL-6 decreased similarly in both groups with time (p=0.004). Admission blood lactate levels were higher in the nonsurviours than in the survivors (6.11±4.78 mEq/l vs 3.49±2.00 mEq/l,p<0.05) and decreased significantly with time in all patients (p=0.024.), However, this decrease was greater in the survivors than in the non-surviors (p=0.003). These data indicate that the large variability in TNFα and IL-6 level limit their prognostic significance in patients with septic shock. The predictive value of the trend in cytokine levels over time is not superior to that of trends in blood lactate levels.

Exposures to ambient air pollutants may prime the lung enhancing risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in sepsis. Our objective was to determine the association of short-, medium-, and long-term pollutant exposures and ARDS risk in critically ill sepsis patients. We analyzed a prospective cohort of 1858 critically ill patients with sepsis, and estimated short- (3 days), medium- (6 weeks), and long- (5 years) term exposures to ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter < 2.5 μm (PM2.5), and PM < 10 μm (PM10) using weighted averages of daily levels from monitors within 50 km of subjects’ residences. Subjects were followed for 6 days for ARDS by the Berlin Criteria. The association between each pollutant and ARDS was determined using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for preselected confounders. In 764 subjects, we measured plasma concentrations of inflammatory proteins at presentation and tested for an association between pollutant exposure and protein concentration via linear regression. ARDS developed in 754 (41%) subjects. Short- and long-term exposures to SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 were associated with ARDS risk (SO2: odds ratio (OR) for the comparison of the 75–25th long-term exposure percentile 1.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16, 1.77); p < 0.01; NO2: 1.36 (1.06, 1.74); p = 0.04, PM2.5: 1.21 (1.04, 1.41); p = 0.03). Long-term exposures to these three pollutants were also associated with plasma interleukin-1 receptor antagonist and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 concentrations. Short and long-term exposures to ambient SO2, PM2.5, and NO2 are associated with increased ARDS risk in sepsis, representing potentially modifiable environmental risk factors for sepsis-associated ARDS.

The lateral Trendelenburg position (LTP) may hinder the primary pathophysiologic mechanism of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). We investigated whether placing patients in the LTP would reduce the incidence of VAP in comparison with the semirecumbent position (SRP). This was a randomized, multicenter, controlled study in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. Two preplanned interim analyses were performed. Patients were randomized to be placed in the LTP or the SRP. The primary outcome, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis, was incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP. Major secondary outcomes included mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit length of stay. At the second interim analysis, the trial was stopped because of low incidence of VAP, lack of benefit in secondary outcomes, and occurrence of adverse events. A total of 194 patients in the LTP group and 201 in the SRP group were included in the final intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP was 0.5% (1/194) and 4.0% (8/201) in LTP and SRP patients, respectively (relative risk 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–1.03, p = 0.04). The 28-day mortality was 30.9% (60/194) and 26.4% (53/201) in LTP and SRP patients, respectively (relative risk 1.17, 95% CI 0.86–1.60, p = 0.32). Likewise, no differences were found in other secondary outcomes. Six serious adverse events were described in LTP patients (p = 0.01 vs. SRP). The LTP slightly decreased the incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP. Nevertheless, given the early termination of the trial, the low incidence of VAP, and the adverse events associated with the LTP, the study failed to prove any significant benefit. Further clinical investigation is strongly warranted; however, at this time, the LTP cannot be recommended as a VAP preventive measure. NCT01138540.