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

Massimo Antonelli, Paolo Navalesi, Andrew Rhodes, Laura E. Evans, Waleed Alhazzani, Mitchell M. Levy, Ricard Ferrer, Anand Kumar, Jonathan E. Sevransky, Charles L. Sprung, Mark E. Nunnally, Bram Rochwerg, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Derek C. Angus, Djillali Annane, Richard J. Beale, Geoffrey J. Bellinghan, Gordon R. Bernard, Jean-Daniel Chiche, Craig CoopersmithDaniel P. De Backer, Craig J. French, Seitaro Fujishima, Herwig Gerlach, Jorge Luis Hidalgo, Steven M. Hollenberg, Alan E. Jones, Dilip R. Karnad, Ruth M. Kleinpell, Younsuck Koh, Thiago Costa Lisboa, Flavia R. Machado, John J. Marini, John C. Marshall, John E. Mazuski, Lauralyn A. Mcintyre, Anthony S. Mclean, Sangeeta Mehta, Rui P. Moreno, John Myburgh, Osamu Nishida, Tiffany M. Osborn, Anders Perner, Colleen M. Plunkett, Marco Ranieri, Christa A. Schorr, Maureen A. Seckel, Christopher W. Seymour, Lisa Shieh, Khalid A. Shukri, Steven Q. Simpson, Mervyn Singer, B. Taylor Thompson, Sean R. Townsend, Thomas Van Der Poll, Jean-Louis Vincent, W. Joost Wiersinga, Janice L. Zimmerman, R. Phillip Dellinger

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo in rivistaArticolo in rivistapeer review

1330 Citazioni (Scopus)

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.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)1-74
Numero di pagine74
RivistaCritical Care Medicine
Volume2017
DOI
Stato di pubblicazionePubblicato - 2017

Keywords

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Fingerprint Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo