Summary of the 2017 Sepsis Guidelines! #FOAMed #FOAMcc #Sepsis

There is a lot to look at here, but these are the main points to take home and to follow. A fair amount of expert work went into these recommendations from some of the biggest names in the field.The original document can be found below.

2017-surviving-sepsis-recommendations

A. INITIAL RESUSCITATION

1. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately (BPS).

2. We recommend that, in the resuscitation from sepsis- induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid uid be given within the rst 3 hours (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).

3. We recommend that, following initial uid resuscitation, additional uids be guided by frequent reassessment of hemodynamic status (BPS).

4. We recommend further hemodynamic assessment (such as assessing cardiac function) to determine the type of shock if the clinical examination does not lead to a clear diagnosis (BPS).

5. We suggest that dynamic over static variables be used to predict uid responsiveness, where available (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

6. We recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure

7. (MAP) of 65 mm Hg in patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

8. We suggest guiding resuscitation to normalize lactate in patients with elevated lactate levels as a marker of tissue hypoperfusion (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

B.SCREENING FOR SEPSIS AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

1. We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients (BPS).

C. DIAGNOSIS

1. We recommend that appropriate routine microbiologic cultures (including blood) be obtained before starting antimicrobial therapy in patients with suspected sepsis or septic shock if doing so results in no substantial delay in the start of antimicrobials (BPS).

Remarks: Appropriate routine microbiologic cultures always include at least two sets of blood cultures (aerobic and anaerobic).

D. ANTIMICROBIAL THERAPY

1. We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both sepsis and septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence; grade applies to both conditions).

2. We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage) (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We recommend that empiric antimicrobial therapy be narrowed once pathogen identi cation and sensitivities are established and/or adequate clinical improvement is noted (BPS).

4. We recommend against sustained systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with severe in ammatory states of noninfectious origin (e.g., severe pancreatitis, burn injury) (BPS).

5. We recommend that dosing strategies of antimicrobials be optimized based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles and specific drug properties in patients with sepsis or septic shock (BPS).

6. We suggest empiric combination therapy (using at least two antibiotics of different antimicrobial classes) aimed at the most likely bacterial pathogen(s) for the initial management of septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

Remarks: Readers should review Table 6 for definitions of empiric, targeted/definitive, broad-spectrum, combination, and multidrug therapy before reading this section.

7. We suggest that combination therapy not be routinely used for ongoing treatment of most other serious infec- tions, including bacteremia and sepsis without shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

Remarks: This does not preclude the use of multidrug therapy to broaden antimicrobial activity.

8. We recommend against combination therapy for the rou- tine treatment of neutropenic sepsis/bacteremia (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

Remarks: This does not preclude the use of multidrug therapy to broaden antimicrobial activity.

9. If combination therapy is initially used for septic shock, we recommend de-escalation with discontinuation of combination therapy within the rst few days in response to clinical improvement and/or evidence of infection resolution. This applies to both targeted (for culture-positive infections) and empiric (for culture-negative infections) combination therapy (BPS).

10. We suggest that an antimicrobial treatment duration of 7 to 10 days is adequate for most serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

11.We suggest that longer courses are appropriate in patients who have a slow clinical response, undrainable foci of infection, bacteremia with S aureus, some fungal and viral infections, or immunologic deficiencies, including neutropenia. (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence)

12. We suggest that shorter courses are appropriate in some patients, particularly those with rapid clinical resolution following effective source control of intra-abdominal or urinary sepsis and those with anatomically uncomplicated pyelonephritis (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

13. We recommend daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock (BPS).

E. SOURCE CONTROL

1. We recommend that a specific anatomic diagnosis of infection requiring emergent source control be identi ed or excluded as rapidly as possible in patients with sepsis or septic shock, and that any required source control intervention be implemented as soon as medically and logistically practical after the diagnosis is made (BPS).

2. We recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established (BPS).

F. FLUID THERAPY

1. We recommend that a uid challenge technique be applied where uid administration is continued as long as hemo- dynamic factors continue to improve (BPS).

2. We recommend crystalloids as the uid of choice for ini- tial resuscitation and subsequent intravascular volume replacement in patients with sepsis and septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence)

3. We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for uid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

4. We suggest using albumin in addition to crystalloids for initial resuscitation and subsequent intravascular volume replacement in patients with sepsis and septic shock when patients require substantial amounts of crystalloids (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

5. We recommend against using hydroxyethyl starches (HESs) for intravascular volume replacement in patients with sepsis or septic shock (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).

6. We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

G. VASOACTIVE MEDICATIONS

1. We recommend norepinephrine as the first-choice vaso- pressor (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

2. We suggest adding either vasopressin (up to 0.03 U/min) (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence) or epinephrine (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence) to norepinephrine with the intent of raising MAP to target, or adding vasopressin (up to 0.03 U/min) (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence) to decrease norepinephrine dosage.

3. We suggest using dopamine as an alternative vasopressor agent to norepinephrine only in highly selected patients (e.g., patients with low risk of tachyarrhythmias and absolute or relative bradycardia) (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

4. We recommend against using low-dose dopamine for renal protection (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).

5. We suggest using dobutamine in patients who show evidence of persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate uid loading and the use of vasopressor agents (weak recom- mendation, low quality of evidence).

Remarks: If initiated, vasopressor dosing should be titrated to an end point reflecting perfusion, and the agent reduced or discontinued in the face of worsening hypotension or arrhythmias.

6. We suggest that all patients requiring vasopressors have an arterial catheter placed as soon as practical if resources are available (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

H. CORTICOSTEROIDS

1. We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate uid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability. If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg per day (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

I. BLOOD PRODUCTS

1. We recommend that RBC transfusion occur only when hemoglobin concentration decreases to < 7.0g/dL in adults in the absence of extenuating circumstances, such as myocardial ischemia, severe hypoxemia, or acute hemorrhage (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).

2. We recommend against the use of erythropoietin for treatment of anemia associated with sepsis (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We suggest against the use of fresh frozen plasma to correct clotting abnormalities in the absence of bleeding or planned invasive procedures (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

4. We suggest prophylactic platelet transfusion when counts are < 10,000/mm3 (10 × 109/L) in the absence of apparent bleeding and when counts are < 20,000/mm3 (20 × 109/L) if the patient has a signi cant risk of bleeding. Higher platelet counts (≥ 50,000/mm3 [50×109/L]) are advised for active bleeding, surgery, or invasive procedures (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

J. IMMUNOGLOBULINS

1. We suggest against the use of IV immunoglobulins in patients with sepsis or septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

K. BLOOD PURIFICATION

1. We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques.

L. ANTICOAGULANTS

1. We recommend against the use of antithrombin for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

2. We make no recommendation regarding the use of thrombomodulin or heparin for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock.

M. MECHANICAL VENTILATION

1. We recommend using a target tidal volume of 6mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) compared with 12 mL/kg in adult patients with sepsis-induced ARDS (strong recom- mendation, high quality of evidence).

2. We recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30cm H2O over higher plateau pressures in adult patients with sepsis-induced severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP in adult patients with sepsis-induced moderate to severe ARDS (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

4. We suggest using recruitment maneuvers in adult patients with sepsis-induced, severe ARDS (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

5. We recommend using prone over supine position in adult patients with sepsis-induced ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 ratio < 150 (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

6. We recommend against using high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in adult patients with sepsis-induced ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

7. We make no recommendation regarding the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with sepsis-induced ARDS.

8. We suggest using neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) for ≤ 48 hours in adult patients with sepsis- induced ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 ratio < 150 mm Hg (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

9. We recommend a conservative uid strategy for patients with established sepsis-induced ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (strong recommenda- tion, moderate quality of evidence).

10. We recommend against the use of β-2 agonists for the treatment of patients with sepsis-induced ARDS without bronchospasm (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

11. We recommend against the routine use of the PA catheter for patients with sepsis-induced ARDS (strong recom- mendation, high quality of evidence).

12. We suggest using lower tidal volumes over higher tidal volumes in adult patients with sepsis-induced respiratory failure without ARDS (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

13.We recommend that mechanically ventilated sepsis patients be maintained with the head of the bed elevated between 30 and 45 degrees to limit aspiration risk and to prevent the development of VAP (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).

14. We recommend using spontaneous breathing trials in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis who are ready for weaning (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).

15. We recommend using a weaning protocol in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis-induced respiratory failure who can tolerate weaning (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

N. SEDATION AND ANALGESIA

1. We recommend that continuous or intermittent sedation be minimized in mechanically ventilated sepsis patients, targeting speci c titration end points (BPS).

O. GLUCOSE CONTROL

1. We recommend a protocolized approach to blood glucose management in ICU patients with sepsis, commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180mg/dL. This approach should target an upper blood glucose level ≤ 180 mg/dL rather than an upper target blood glucose level ≤ 110 mg/dL (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).

2. We recommend that blood glucose values be monitored every 1 to 2 hours until glucose values and insulin infusion rates are stable, then every 4 hours thereafter in patients receiving insulin infusions (BPS).

3. We recommend that glucose levels obtained with point- of-care testing of capillary blood be interpreted with caution because such measurements may not accurately estimate arterial blood or plasma glucose values (BPS).

4. We suggest the use of arterial blood rather than capillary blood for point-of-care testing using glucose meters if patients have arterial catheters (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

P. RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY

1. We suggest that either continuous RRT (CRRT) or intermittent RRT be used in patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence)

2. We suggest using CRRT to facilitate management of fluid balance in hemodynamically unstable septic patients (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

3. We suggest against the use of RRT in patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury for increase in creatinine or oliguria without other de nitive indications for dialysis (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

4. We suggest combination pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis, whenever possible (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

5. We suggest mechanical VTE prophylaxis when pharmacologic VTE is contraindicated (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

Q. BICARBONATE THERAPY

1. We suggest against the use of sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements in patients with hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia with pH ≥ 7.15 (weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

R. VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM PROPHYLAXIS

1. We recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis (unfractionated heparin [UFH] or low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the absence of contraindications to the use of these agents (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

2. We recommend LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis in the absence of contraindications to the use of LMWH (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We suggest combination pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis, whenever possible (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

4. We suggest mechanical VTE prophylaxis when pharmacologic VTE is contraindicated (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

S. STRESS ULCER PROPHYLAXIS

1. We recommend that stress ulcer prophylaxis be given to patients with sepsis or septic shock who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).

2. We suggest using either proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) when stress ulcer prophylaxis is indicated (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

3. We recommend against stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients without risk factors for GI bleeding (BPS).

T. NUTRITION

1. We recommend against the administration of early parenteral nutrition alone or parenteral nutrition in combination with enteral feedings (but rather initiate early enteral nutrition) in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally (strong recommen- dation, moderate quality of evidence).

2. We recommend against the administration of parenteral nutrition alone or in combination with enteral feeds (but rather to initiate IV glucose and advance enteral feeds as tolerated) over the rst 7 days in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock for whom early enteral feeding is not feasible (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We suggest the early initiation of enteral feeding rather than a complete fast or only IV glucose in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

4. We suggest either early trophic/hypocaloric or early full enteral feeding in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock; if trophic/hypocaloric feeding is the initial strategy, then feeds should be advanced according to patient tolerance (weak recommendation, moderate qual- ity of evidence).

5. We recommend against the use of omega-3 fatty acids as an immune supplement in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).

6. We suggest against routinely monitoring gastric residual volumes (GRVs) in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). However, we suggest measurement of gastric residuals in patients with feeding intolerance or who are considered to be at high risk of aspiration (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

Remarks: This recommendation refers to nonsurgical critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.

7. We suggest the use of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock and feeding intolerance (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

8. We suggest placement of postpyloric feeding tubes in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock with feeding intolerance or who are considered to be at high risk of aspiration (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

9. We recommend against the use of IV selenium to treat sepsis and septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

10. We suggest against the use of arginine to treat sepsis and septic shock (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

11. We recommend against the use of glutamine to treat sepsis and septic shock (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

12. We make no recommendation about the use of carnitine for sepsis and septic shock.

U. SETTING GOALS OF CARE

1. We recommend that goals of care and prognosis be discussed with patients and families (BPS).

2. We recommend that goals of care be incorporated into treatment and end-of-life care planning, utilizing palliative care principles where appropriate (strong recommen- dation, moderate quality of evidence).

3. We suggest that goals of care be addressed as early as feasible, but no later than within 72 hours of ICU admission (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence).

One thought on “Summary of the 2017 Sepsis Guidelines! #FOAMed #FOAMcc #Sepsis

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: