Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016

@article{Rhodes2017SurvivingSC,
  title={Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016},
  author={Andrew Rhodes and Laura Evans and Waleed Alhazzani and Mitchell M. Levy and Massimo Antonelli and Ricard Ferrer and Anand Kumar and Jonathan E. Sevransky and Charles L Sprung and Mark E. Nunnally and Bram Rochwerg and Gordon David Rubenfeld and Derek C. Angus and Djillali Annane and Richard Beale and Geoff Bellinghan and Gordon R. Bernard and Jean Daniel Chiche and Craig M. Coopersmith and Daniel De Backer and Craig J French and Seitaro Fujishima and Herwig Gerlach and Jorge Luis Hidalgo and Steven M. Hollenberg and Alan E. Jones and Dilip R Karnad and Ruth Kleinpell and Younsuck Koh and Thiago Lisboa and Fl{\'a}via Ribeiro Machado and John J. Marini and John C. Marshall and John E. Mazuski and Lauralyn McIntyre and Anthony S McLean and Sangeeta Mehta and Rui Moreno and John Myburgh and Paolo Navalesi and Osamu Nishida and Tiffany Medlin Osborn and Anders Perner and Colleen M. Plunkett and Marco Vito Ranieri and Christa A. Schorr and Maureen A. Seckel and Christopher W. Seymour and Lisa Shieh and Khalid A. Shukri and Steven Q. Simpson and Mervyn Singer and Boyd Taylor Thompson and Sean Robert Townsend and Tom van der Poll and Jean Louis Vincent and Willem Joost Wiersinga and Janice L. Zimmerman and Richard Phillip Dellinger},
  journal={Critical Care Medicine},
  year={2017},
  volume={45},
  pages={486–552}
}
Objective: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 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… 
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock
TLDR
While 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 ofSepsis.
Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock
TLDR
While 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 ofSepsis.
Evaluation and management of suspected sepsis and septic shock in adults
TLDR
In this topic review, the management of sepsis and septic shock is discussed and definitions, diagnosis, pathophysiology, and investigational therapies for sepsi, as well as management ofsepsis in the asplenic patient are reviewed separately.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
TLDR
Specific areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsi care.
Update in sepsis guidelines: what is really new?
TLDR
A novel scoring system to rapidly screen for patients outside the ICU who are at risk of developing sepsis: the ‘quickSOFA’ (qSOFA) score.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 update
TLDR
In response to the publication of “Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016” [12, 13], a revised “hour-1 bundle” has been developed and is presented below.
Sepsis 2018: Definitions and Guideline Changes.
TLDR
This review discusses the new Sepsis-3 definitions and guidelines and proposes a new screening tool for sepsis (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA]) to predict the likelihood of poor outcome in out-of-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with clinical suspicion of Sepsis.
Review article: Sepsis in the emergency department – Part 3: Treatment
TLDR
Conventional fluid therapy has been challenged with early evidence supporting balanced, restricted fluid and early vasopressor use, and albumin, vasopressin and hydrocortisone have each been shown to support blood pressure and reduce catecholamine requirements but without effect on mortality.
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
TLDR
A panel of 36 experts from 12 countries issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 749 REFERENCES
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock 2012
TLDR
An update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008 is provided.
Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock
TLDR
Evidence-based recommendations can be made regarding many aspects of the acute management of sepsis and septic shock that are hoped to translate into improved outcomes for the critically ill patient.
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).
TLDR
The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant and updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsi or at risk of developing sepsic shock.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis
TLDR
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care and a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates wasassociated with participation.
Foreword. The Future of Sepsis Performance Improvement.
TLDR
The publication of the first International Guidelines for the Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in 2004 began a sustained effort to reduce sepsis mortality, which subsequently included collaboration with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to develop “care bundles”.
Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients: 2004 update
TLDR
An organized approach to the hemodynamic support of sepsis was formulated, and specific recommendations for fluid resuscitation, vasopressor therapy, and inotropic therapy of septic in adult patients were promulgated.
Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Reduces Mortality in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock From the First Hour: Results From a Guideline-Based Performance Improvement Program*
TLDR
The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, and there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration.
Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).
TLDR
To evaluate the validity of clinical criteria to identify patients with suspected infection who are at risk of sepsis, a new model derived using multivariable logistic regression in a split sample was derived.
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study
TLDR
This analysis demonstrates that increased compliance with sepsis performance bundles was associated with a 25 % relative risk reduction in mortality rate, and demonstrates that performance metrics can drive change in clinical behavior, improve quality of care, and may decrease mortality in patients with severe sepsi and septic shock.
Bundled care for septic shock: An analysis of clinical trials*
TLDR
Bundle use was associated with consistent and significant improvement in survival and antibiotic use, and use of other bundle components changed heterogeneously across studies, making their impact on survival uncertain.
...
...