SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

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; et al. 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, J-D; 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, J-L; Wiersinga, WJ; Zimmerman, JL; Dellinger, RP (2017) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med, 43 (3). pp. 304-377. ISSN 1432-1238 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6
SGUL Authors: Rhodes, Andrew

[img]
Preview
PDF Accepted Version
Available under License ["licenses_description_publisher" not defined].

Download (922kB) | Preview

Abstract

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 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.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Intensive Care Medicine. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6
Keywords: Evidence-based medicine, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, Guidelines, Infection, Sepsis, Sepsis bundles, Sepsis syndrome, Septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Blood Glucose, Calcitonin, Critical Illness, Erythrocyte Transfusion, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Patient Care Planning, Renal Replacement Therapy, Respiration, Artificial, Sepsis, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Humans, Sepsis, Shock, Septic, Critical Illness, Calcitonin, Blood Glucose, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Erythrocyte Transfusion, Fluid Therapy, Respiration, Artificial, Renal Replacement Therapy, Nutrition Assessment, Patient Care Planning, Evidence-based medicine, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, Guidelines, Infection, Sepsis, Sepsis bundles, Sepsis syndrome, Septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign, Evidence-based medicine, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, Guidelines, Infection, Sepsis, Sepsis bundles, Sepsis syndrome, Septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Blood Glucose, Calcitonin, Critical Illness, Erythrocyte Transfusion, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Patient Care Planning, Renal Replacement Therapy, Respiration, Artificial, Sepsis, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, Emergency & Critical Care Medicine
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Cell Sciences (INCCCS)
Journal or Publication Title: Intensive Care Med
ISSN: 1432-1238
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
March 2017Published
18 January 2017Published Online
6 January 2017Accepted
Publisher License: Publisher's own licence
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
R35 GM119519NIGMS NIH HHSUNSPECIFIED
PubMed ID: 28101605
Web of Science ID: WOS:000394987200002
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/109147
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item