To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. 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. 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. 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. 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.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00134-017-4683-6.pdf

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

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

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

Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

Bloodstream infection (BSI) is defined by positive blood cultures in a patient with systemic signs of infection and may be either secondary to a documented source or primary—that is, without identified origin. Community-acquired BSIs in immunocompetent adults usually involve drug-susceptible bacteria, while healthcare-associated BSIs are frequently due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. Early adequate antimicrobial therapy is a key to improve patient outcomes, especially in those with criteria for sepsis or septic shock, and should be based on guidelines and direct examination of available samples. Local epidemiology, suspected source, immune status, previous antimicrobial exposure, and documented colonization with MDR bacteria must be considered for the choice of first-line antimicrobials in healthcare-associated and hospital-acquired BSIs. Early genotypic or phenotypic tests are now available for bacterial identification and early detection of resistance mechanisms and may help, though their clinical impact warrants further investigations. Initial antimicrobial dosing should take into account the pharmacokinetic alterations commonly observed in ICU patients, with a loading dose in case of sepsis or septic shock. Initial antimicrobial combination attempting to increase the antimicrobial spectrum should be discussed when MDR bacteria are suspected and/or in the most severely ill patients. Source identification and control should be performed as soon as the hemodynamic status is stabilized. De-escalation from a broad-spectrum to a narrow-spectrum antimicrobial may reduce antibiotic selection pressure without negative impact on mortality. The duration of therapy is usually 5–8 days though longer durations may be discussed depending on the underlying illness and the source of infection. This narrative review covers the epidemiology, diagnostic workflow and therapeutic aspects of BSI in ICU patients and proposed up-to-date expert statements.

/pdf/bloodstream-infections-in-critically-ill-patients-an-expert-4qj6a30577.pdf

Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement

Objective:Catheter-related bloodstream infections are associated with significant costs and adverse consequences. Arterial catheters are commonly used in the critical care setting and are among the most heavily manipulated vascular access devices. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of arterial cat

Arterial Catheters as a Source of Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

Reducing Transmission of Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus in the ICU—An Update on Prevention and Infection Control Practices

Perceptions of Patients Regarding Isolation Precautions for Multidrug Resistant Organisms: A Qualitative Study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Anna Krupp

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Arterial Catheters as a Source of Bloodstream Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

Reducing Transmission of Methicillin- Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus in the ICU—An Update on Prevention and Infection Control Practices

Perceptions of Patients Regarding Isolation Precautions for Multidrug Resistant Organisms: A Qualitative Study