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.

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

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.

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.