TY - JOUR KW - Humans KW - Intensive Care Units KW - Critical Care KW - Fluid Therapy KW - Sepsis KW - Anti-Bacterial Agents KW - Nutritional Support KW - Respiration, Artificial KW - Resuscitation KW - Shock, Septic AU - Rhodes Andrew AU - Myburgh J AU - Perner Anders AU - Angus Derek AU - Marshall John AU - Singer Mervyn AU - Machado Flavia AU - Alhazzani Waleed AU - Evans Laura AU - Levy Mitchell AU - Antonelli Massimo AU - Ferrer Ricard AU - Kumar Anand AU - Sevransky Jonathan AU - Sprung Charles AU - Nunnally Mark AU - Rochwerg Bram AU - Rubenfeld Gordon AU - Annane Djillali AU - Beale Richard AU - Bellinghan Geoffrey AU - Bernard Gordon AU - Chiche Jean-Daniel AU - Coopersmith Craig AU - De Backer Daniel AU - French Craig AU - Fujishima Seitaro AU - Gerlach Herwig AU - Hidalgo Jorge AU - Hollenberg Steven AU - Jones Alan AU - Karnad Dilip AU - Kleinpell Ruth AU - Koh Younsuck AU - Lisboa Thiago AU - Marini John AU - Mazuski John AU - McIntyre Lauralyn AU - McLean Anthony AU - Mehta Sangeeta AU - Moreno Rui AU - Navalesi Paolo AU - Nishida Osamu AU - Osborn Tiffany AU - Plunkett Colleen AU - Ranieri Marco AU - Schorr Christa AU - Seckel Maureen AU - Seymour Christopher AU - Shieh Lisa AU - Shukri Khalid AU - Simpson Steven AU - B Thompson Taylor AU - Townsend Sean AU - Van der Poll Thomas AU - Vincent Jean-Louis AU - W Wiersinga Joost AU - Zimmerman Janice AU - R Dellinger Phillip AB -

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.

BT - Crit Care Med DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255 IS - 3 J2 - Crit. Care Med. LA - eng N2 -

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.

PY - 2017 SP - 486 EP - 552 T2 - Crit Care Med TI - Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. VL - 45 SN - 1530-0293 ER -