Search

Biomarker werden in der modernen Intensivmedizin weit verbreitet eingesetzt. Dabei ist die Frage nach dem Nutzen fur das Outcome der Patienten nicht immer gut untersucht. Im folgenden Artikel werden einzelne Biomarker zu den Fragen der Infektionsdiagnostik und Steuerung der Antibiotikatherapie im Rahmen eines Antibiotic-Stewardship-Programms (ABS) besprochen. Als Infektionsmarker hat sich insbesondere das Prokalzitonin (PCT) bewahrt. Es gelingt mit dem PCT besser als mit anderen Markern, zwischen Inflammation und Infektion zu differenzieren. Auch im Kontext von ABS-Visiten ist das PCT gut etabliert.

Large clinical trials testing hydrocortisone therapy in septic shock have produced conflicting results. Subgroups may benefit of hydrocortisone treatment depending on their individual immune response. We performed an exploratory analysis of the database from the international randomized controlled clinical trial Corticosteroid Therapy of Septic Shock (CORTICUS) employing machine learning to a panel of 137 variables collected from the Berlin subcohort comprising 83 patients including demographic and clinical measures, organ failure scores, leukocyte counts and levels of circulating cytokines. The identified theranostic marker was validated against data from a cohort of the Hellenic Sepsis Study Group (HSSG) (n = 246), patients enrolled in the clinical trial of Sodium Selenite and Procalcitonin Guided Antimicrobial Therapy in Severe Sepsis (SISPCT, n = 118), and another, smaller clinical trial (Crossover study, n = 20). In addition, in vitro blood culture experiments and in vivo experiments in mouse models were performed to assess biological plausibility. A low serum IFNγ/IL10 ratio predicted increased survival in the hydrocortisone group whereas a high ratio predicted better survival in the placebo group. Using this marker for a decision rule, we applied it to three validation sets and observed the same trend. Experimental studies in vitro revealed that IFNγ/IL10 was negatively associated with the load of (heat inactivated) pathogens in spiked human blood and in septic mouse models. Accordingly, an in silico analysis of published IFNγ and IL10 values in bacteremic and non-bacteremic patients with the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome supported this association between the ratio and pathogen burden. We propose IFNγ/IL10 as a molecular marker supporting the decision to administer hydrocortisone to patients in septic shock. Prospective clinical studies are necessary and standard operating procedures need to be implemented, particularly to define a generic threshold. If confirmed, IFNγ/IL10 may become a suitable theranostic marker for an urging clinical need. © Copyright © 2021 König, Kolte, Ahlers, Oswald, Krauss, Roell, Sommerfeld, Dimopoulos, Tsangaris, Antoniadou, Jaishankar, Bogatsch, Löffler, Rödel, Garcia-Moreno, Tuchscherr, Sprung, Singer, Brunkhorst, Oppert, Gerlach, Claus, Coldewey, Briegel, Giamarellos-Bourboulis, Keh and Bauer.

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1st revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the "German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal" of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources. Leitlinien sind systematisch entwickelte Darstellungen und Empfehlungen mit dem Zweck, Ärzte und Patienten bei der Entscheidung über angemessene Maßnahmen der Krankenversorgung unter spezifischen medizinischen Umständen und unter Berücksichtigung des spezifischen nationalen Gesundheitssystems zu unterstützen. Die erste Revision der S-2k-Leitlinie der Deutschen Sepsis-Gesellschaft in Kooperation mit 17 weiteren wissenschaftlichen medizinischen Fachgesellschaften und einer Selbsthilfegruppe gibt den Stand des Wissens (Ergebnisse von kontrollierten klinischen Studien und Wissen von Experten) über effektive und angemessene Krankenversorgung zum Zeitpunkt der "Drucklegung" wieder. Die Leitlinienentwicklung erfolgte entsprechend des "Deutschen Instrumentes zur methodischen Leitlinien-Bewertung" der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). In Anbetracht der unausbleiblichen Fortschritte wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse und der Technik müssen periodische Überarbeitungen, Erneuerungen und Korrekturen unternommen werden. Die Empfehlungen der Leitlinien können nicht unter allen Umständen angemessen genutzt werden. Die Entscheidung darüber, ob einer bestimmten Empfehlung gefolgt werden soll, muß vom Arzt unter Berücksichtigung der beim individuellen Patienten vorliegenden Gegebenheiten und der verfügbaren Ressourcen getroffen werden.

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1st revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the “German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal” of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources., GMS German Medical Science; 8:Doc14; ISSN 1612-3174

In the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse.

Introduction Recent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as crystalloid, colloid or blood products). Results During the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488 resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%)) than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44) and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity (for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score). Conclusions Administration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than crystalloids were.

n/a

GMS german medical science 8, Doc14 (2010). doi:10.3205/000103, Published by German Medical Science, Düsseldorf [u.a.]

CONTEXT: The benefit of corticosteroids in severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We examined the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in severe sepsis and septic shock and the influence of dose and duration. DATA SOURCES: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (through March 2009) databases as well as reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings, and we contacted trial authors. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of corticosteroids vs placebo or supportive treatment in adult patients with severe sepsis/septic shock per the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus definition were included. DATA EXTRACTION: All reviewers agreed on trial eligibility. One reviewer extracted data, which were checked by the other reviewers and by the trials' authors whenever possible. Some unpublished data were obtained from the trials' authors. The primary outcome for this review was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: We identified 17 randomized trials (n = 2138) and 3 quasi-randomized trials (n = 246) that had acceptable methodological quality to pool in a meta-analysis. Twenty-eight-day mortality for treated vs control patients was 388/1099 (35.3%) vs 400/1039 (38.5%) in randomized trials (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.00; P = .05; I(2) = 53% by random-effects model) and 28/121 (23.1%) vs 24/125 (19.2%) in quasi-randomized trials (RR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.69-1.58; P = .83). In 12 trials investigating prolonged low-dose corticosteroid treatment, 28-day mortality for treated vs control patients was 236/629 (37.5%) vs 264/599 (44%) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97; P = .02). This treatment increased 28-day shock reversal (6 trials; 322/481 [66.9%] vs 276/471 [58.6%]; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23; P = .02; I(2) = 4%) and reduced intensive care unit length of stay by 4.49 days (8 trials; 95% CI, -7.04 to -1.94; P < .001; I(2) = 0%) without increasing the risk of gastroduodenal bleeding (13 trials; 65/800 [8.1%] vs 56/764 [7.3%]; P = .50; I(2) = 0%), superinfection (14 trials; 184/998 [18.4%] vs 170/950 [17.9%]; P = .92; I(2) = 8%), or neuromuscular weakness (3 trials; 4/407 [1%] vs 7/404 [1.7%]; P = .58; I(2) = 30%). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (9 trials; 363/703 [51.6%] vs 308/670 [46%]; P < .001; I(2) = 0%) and hypernatremia (3 trials; 127/404 [31.4%] vs 77/401 [19.2%]; P < .001; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid therapy has been used in varied doses for sepsis and related syndromes for more than 50 years, with no clear benefit on mortality. Since 1998, studies have consistently used prolonged low-dose corticosteroid therapy, and analysis of this subgroup suggests a beneficial drug effect on short-term mortality.