Intensive Care Medicine最新文献

Objective: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock.

Design: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group.

Setting: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively.

Subjects: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional, and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants).

Measurements and main results: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds) were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement.

Conclusions: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 µg per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

Objective: To update evidence-based management recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with sepsis or septic shock.

Design: A panel of 68 international experts, representing 13 international organizations, as well as six methodologists, was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and applied throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and subgroup leads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process.

Methods: New priority topics and recommendations from the prior guideline iteration were used to identify Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions likely to have new or updated evidence. We conducted a systematic review to identify the best available evidence, summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or conditional, or as a good practice statement. "In our practice," statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate.

Results: The panel provided 61 statements on the management of children with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 24 were conditional recommendations, and ten were good practice statements. For 22 PICO questions, no recommendations could be made, but for seven of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. Compared with the 2020 guidelines, 20 recommendations were new, 13 were updated for clarity and/or new evidence, six were reviewed but not changed, and 22 were carried forward based on consensus of the panel that new evidence was not available. Only three recommendations were based on high or moderate certainty of evidence.

Conclusions: Updated management guidelines were issued by a panel of international experts for the best care of children with sepsis or septic shock, acknowledging that most aspects of care continue to have relatively low quality of evidence.