Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, 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. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed 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 potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Ventricular arrhythmia in coronary artery disease: limits of a risk stratification strategy based on the ejection fraction alone and impact of infarct localization.

AIMS: Estimates of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias related to coronary artery disease (CAD) have rarely been reported despite it has become the basis for determining patient's eligibility for prophylactic defibrillator. We aimed to determine the extent and distribution of reduced LVEF in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: 252 patients admitted for ventricular arrhythmia related to CAD were included: 149 had acute myocardial infarction (MI) (Group I, 59%), 54 had significant chronic obstructive CAD suggestive of an ischaemic arrhythmic trigger (Group II, 21%) and 49 patients had an old MI without residual ischaemia (Group III, 19%). 34% of the patients with scar-related arrhythmias had an LVEF > or =40%. Based on pre-event LVEF evaluation, it can be estimated that less than one quarter of the whole study population had a known chronic MI with severely reduced LVEF. In Group III, the proportion of inferior MI was significantly higher than anterior MI (81 vs. 19%; absolute difference, -62; 95% confidence interval, -45 to -79; P < or = 0.0001), though median LVEF was higher in inferior MI (0.37 +/- 10 vs. 0.29 +/- 10; P = 0.0499). CONCLUSION: Patients included in defibrillator trials represent only a minority of the patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. By applying the current risk stratification strategy based on LVEF, more than one third of the patients with old MI would not have qualified for a prophylactic defibrillator. Our study also suggests that inferior scars may be more prone to ventricular arrhythmia compared to anterior scars.

Cost evaluation and comparison of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization : results of the suspected CAD protocol of the European CMR registry

Background: The public health burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is important. Perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect and monitor CAD. Few studies have so far addressed its costs and costeffectiveness. Objectives: To compare in a large CMR registry the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two hypothetical invasive strategies for the diagnosis and the treatment of patients with suspected CAD. Methods: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD included prospectively in the EuroCMR Registry (59 centers; 18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations, revascularizations as well as for complication management over a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR+CXA strategy). Ischemia was found in 20.9% of patients and 17.4% of them were revascularized. In ischemia-negative patients by CMR, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarctions occurred in 0.38%/y. In a hypothetical invasive arm the costs were calculated for an initial CXA followed by FFR testing in vessels with ≥50% diameter stenoses (=CXA+FFR strategy). To model this hypothetical arm, the same proportion of ischemic patients and outcome was assumed as for the CMR+CXA strategy. The coronary stenosis - FFR relationship reported in the literature was used to derive the proportion of patients with ≥50% diameter stenoses (Psten) in the study cohort. The costs of a CXA-only strategy were also calculated. Calculations were performed from a third payer perspective for the German, UK, Swiss, and US healthcare systems.