Search

Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome and phenotypes have been proposed using clinical data. Less is known about the contribution of protein biomarkers to clinical sepsis phenotypes and their importance for treatment effects in randomized trials of resuscitation. The objective is to use both clinical and biomarker data in the Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) randomized trial to determine sepsis phenotypes and to test for heterogeneity of treatment effect by phenotype comparing usual care to protocolized early, goal-directed therapy(EGDT). In this secondary analysis of a subset of patients with biomarker sampling in the ProCESS trial (n = 543), we identified sepsis phenotypes prior to randomization using latent class analysis of 20 clinical and biomarker variables. Logistic regression was used to test for interaction between phenotype and treatment arm for 60-day inpatient mortality. Among 543 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the ProCESS trial, a 2-class model best fit the data (p = 0.01). Phenotype 1 (n = 66, 12%) had increased IL-6, ICAM, and total bilirubin and decreased platelets compared to phenotype 2 (n = 477, 88%, p < 0.01 for all). Phenotype 1 had greater 60-day inpatient mortality compared to Phenotype 2 (41% vs 16%; p < 0.01). Treatment with EGDT was associated with worse 60-day inpatient mortality compared to usual care (58% vs. 23%) in Phenotype 1 only (p-value for interaction = 0.05). The 60-day inpatient mortality was similar comparing EGDT to usual care in Phenotype 2 (16% vs. 17%). We identified 2 sepsis phenotypes using latent class analysis of clinical and protein biomarker data at randomization in the ProCESS trial. Phenotype 1 had increased inflammation, organ dysfunction and worse clinical outcomes compared to phenotype 2. Response to EGDT versus usual care differed by phenotype., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Sepsis is common, deadly, and heterogenous. Prior analyses of patients with sepsis and septic shock in New York State showed a risk-adjusted association between more rapid antibiotic administration and bundled care completion, but not an intravenous fluid bolus, with reduced in-hospital mortality. However, it is unknown if clinically identifiable sepsis subtypes modify these associations., Methods: Secondary analysis of patients with sepsis and septic shock enrolled in the New York State Department of Health cohort from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified as clinical sepsis subtypes (α, β, γ, δ-types) using the Sepsis ENdotyping in Emergency CAre (SENECA) approach. Exposure variables included time to 3-h sepsis bundle completion, antibiotic administration, and intravenous fluid bolus completion. Then logistic regression models evaluated the interaction between exposures, clinical sepsis subtypes, and in-hospital mortality., Results: 55,169 hospitalizations from 155 hospitals were included (34% α, 30% β, 19% γ, 17% δ). The α-subtype had the lowest (N = 1,905, 10%) and δ-subtype had the highest (N = 3,776, 41%) in-hospital mortality. Each hour to completion of the 3-h bundle (aOR, 1.04 [95%CI, 1.02-1.05]) and antibiotic initiation (aOR, 1.03 [95%CI, 1.02-1.04]) was associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The association differed across subtypes (p-interactions < 0.05). For example, the outcome association for the time to completion of the 3-h bundle was greater in the δ-subtype (aOR, 1.07 [95%CI, 1.05-1.10]) compared to α-subtype (aOR, 1.02 [95%CI, 0.99-1.04]). Time to intravenous fluid bolus completion was not associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.99 [95%CI, 0.97-1.01]) and did not differ among subtypes (p-interaction = 0.41)., Conclusion: Timely completion of a 3-h sepsis bundle and antibiotic initiation was associated with reduced risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, an association modified by clinically identifiable sepsis subtype., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: The 23rd Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI-23) consensus conference proposed a framework to integrate biomarkers into the staging of acute kidney injury (AKI). It is unknown whether tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 2 (TIMP-2) and insulinlike growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) could be used for staging., Objective: To test whether higher levels of urinary [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] are associated with lower survival among patients with the same functional stage of AKI., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was performed using data from the Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial, which enrolled critically ill patients with septic shock who presented at academic and community emergency departments and intensive care units in the US from March 2008 to May 2013. Patients with end-stage kidney disease, a reference serum creatinine level of 4 mg/dL or greater (to convert to μmol/L, multiply by 76.25), or missing data on serum creatinine levels or urinary levels of [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] were excluded. Data were analyzed from October 2020 to October 2021., Exposures: The presence of AKI, assessed using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria within 24 hours after enrollment and the highest AKI stage as well as urinary [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] level at 6 hours after enrollment. A previously reported high-specificity cutoff level for [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] of 2.0 (ng/mL)2/1000 was used to categorize patients (including those without functional criteria of AKI) according to the new staging system proposed by the ADQI-23 as biomarker negative (urinary [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] level ≤2.0 [ng/mL]2/1000) or biomarker positive ([TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] >2.0 [ng/mL]2/1000)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival (assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots and the log-rank test) and mortality (assessed using relative risk [RR] 30 days after enrollment)., Results: The analysis included 999 patients with a median age of 61 years (IQR, 50-73 years); 554 (55.5%) were male. Biomarker-positive patients had lower survival and higher mortality at 30 days in the groups with AKI stage 1 (RR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.02-4.72), stage 2 (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.27), and stage 3 (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.00-2.60). The associations were specific to patients with AKI. No difference in 30-day survival was found between biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative patients in the absence of functional criteria for AKI (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.45-3.01)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that assessment of the cell-cycle arrest biomarkers TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 may augment AKI staging for patients with functional criteria for AKI.

Objectives: Most septic patients are initially encountered in the emergency department where sepsis recognition is often delayed, in part due to the lack of effective biomarkers. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of peripheral blood monocyte distribution width alone and in combination with WBC count for early sepsis detection in the emergency department., Design: An Institutional Review Board approved, blinded, observational, prospective cohort study conducted between April 2017 and January 2018., Setting: Subjects were enrolled from emergency departments at three U.S. academic centers., Patients: Adult patients, 18-89 years, with complete blood count performed upon presentation to the emergency department, and who remained hospitalized for at least 12 hours. A total of 2,212 patients were screened, of whom 2,158 subjects were enrolled and categorized per Sepsis-2 criteria, such as controls (n = 1,088), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (n = 441), infection (n = 244), and sepsis (n = 385), and Sepsis-3 criteria, such as control (n = 1,529), infection (n = 386), and sepsis (n = 243)., Interventions: The primary outcome determined whether an monocyte distribution width of greater than 20.0 U, alone or in combination with WBC, improves early sepsis detection by Sepsis-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints determined monocyte distribution width performance for Sepsis-3 detection., Measurements and Main Results: Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U distinguished sepsis from all other conditions based on either Sepsis-2 criteria (area under the curve, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.82) or Sepsis-3 criteria (area under the curve, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76). The negative predictive values for monocyte distribution width less than or equal to 20 U for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 were 93% and 94%, respectively. Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U combined with an abnormal WBC further improved Sepsis-2 detection (area under the curve, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) and as reflected by likelihood ratio and added value analyses. Normal WBC and monocyte distribution width inferred a six-fold lower sepsis probability., Conclusions: An monocyte distribution width value of greater than 20.0 U is effective for sepsis detection, based on either Sepsis-2 criteria or Sepsis-3 criteria, during the initial emergency department encounter. In tandem with WBC, monocyte distribution width is further predicted to enhance medical decision making during early sepsis management in the emergency department.

Post-hoc subgroup analysis of the negative trial of interleukin-1β receptor antagonist (IL1RA) for septic shock suggested that patients with features of macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) experienced a 50% relative risk reduction for mortality with treatment. Here we seek a genetic basis for this differential response. From 1341 patients enrolled in the ProCESS trial of early goal directed therapy for septic shock, we selected 6 patients with MAS features and the highest ferritin, for whole exome sequencing (mean 24,030.7 ηg/ml, ±SEM 7,411.1). In total 11 rare (minor allele frequency <5%) pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants causal for the monogenic disorders of Familial Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis, atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Familial Mediterranean Fever, and Cryopyrin-associated Periodic Fever were identified. In these conditions, seven of the identified variants are currently targeted with IL1RA and four with anti-C5 antibody. Gene-targeted precision medicine may benefit this subgroup of patients with septic shock and pathogenic immune variation.

Background: We sought to determine the effects of alternative resuscitation strategies on microcirculatory perfusion and examine any association between microcirculatory perfusion and mortality in sepsis., Methods: This was a prospective, formally designed substudy of participants in the Protocolized Care in Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial. We recruited from six sites with the equipment and training to perform these study procedures. All subjects were adults with septic shock, and each was assigned to alternative resuscitation strategies. The two main analyses assessed (1) the impact of resuscitation strategies on microcirculatory perfusion parameters and (2) the association of microcirculatory perfusion with 60-day in-hospital mortality. We measured sublingual microcirculatory perfusion using sidestream dark field in vivo video microscopy at the completion of the 6-h ProCESS resuscitation protocol and then again at 24 and 72 h., Results: We enrolled 207 subjects (demographics were similar to the overall ProCESS cohort) and observed 40 (19.3%) deaths. There were no differences in average perfusion characteristics between treatment arms. Analyzing the relationship between microcirculatory perfusion and mortality, we found an association between vascular density parameters and mortality. Total vascular density (beta = 0.006, p < 0.003), perfused vascular density (beta = 0.005, p < 0.04), and De Backer score (beta = 0.009, p < 0.01) were higher overall in survivors in a generalized estimating equation model, and this association was significant at the 72-h time point (p < 0.05 for each parameter)., Conclusions: Microcirculatory perfusion did not differ between three early septic shock treatment arms. We found an association between microcirculatory perfusion parameters of vascular density at 72 h and mortality., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00510835 . Registered on August 2, 2007.

Background: Several studies have shown that long-term survival after acute kidney injury (AKI) is reduced even if there is clinical recovery. However, we recently reported that in septic shock patients those that recover from AKI have survival similar to patients without AKI. Here, we studied a cohort with less severe sepsis to examine the effects of AKI on longer-term survival as a function of recovery by discharge., Methods: We analyzed patients with community-acquired pneumonia from the Genetic and Inflammatory Markers of Sepsis (GenIMS) cohort. We included patients who developed AKI (KDIGO stages 2-3) and defined renal recovery as alive at hospital discharge with return of SCr to within 150% of baseline without dialysis. Our primary outcome was survival up to 3 years analyzed using Gray's model., Results: Of the 1742 patients who survived to hospital discharge, stage 2-3 AKI occurred in 262 (15%), of which 111 (42.4%) recovered. Compared to recovered patients, patients without recovery were older (75 ±14 vs 69 ±15 years, p<0.001) and were more likely to have at least stage 1 AKI on day 1 (83% vs 52%, p<0.001). Overall, 445 patients (25.5%) died during follow-up, 23.4% (347/1480) for no AKI, 28% (31/111) for AKI with recovery and 44.3% (67/151) for AKI without recovery. Patients who did not recover had worse survival compared to no AKI (HR range 1.05-2.46, p = 0.01), while recovering patients had similar survival compared to no AKI (HR 1.01, 95%CI 0.69-1.47, p = 0.96). Absence of AKI on day 1, no in-hospital renal replacement therapy (RRT), higher Apache III score and higher baseline SCr were associated with recovery after AKI., Conclusions: In patients with sepsis, recovery by hospital discharge is associated with long-term survival similar to patients without AKI., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Septic shock carries substantial morbidity and mortality. The failure of many promising therapies during late-phase clinical trials prompted calls for alternative trial designs. We describe an innovative trial evaluating selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V 1a receptor agonist, for adults with septic shock. SEPSIS-ACT (Selepressin Evaluation Programme for Sepsis-induced Shock-Adaptive Clinical Trial) is a blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-part, adaptive phase 2b/3 trial, evaluating up to four selepressin dosing strategies. The primary outcome is pressor- and ventilator-free days, with a value of zero assigned for death within 30 days. We calculate Bayesian probabilities of final trial success to guide interim decision-making. Part 1 (dose-finding) has an adaptive sample size based on response-adaptive randomization and prespecified rules to determine stopping for futility or selection of the best dosing regimen for Part 2. Part 2 (confirmation) randomizes a minimum of 1,000 patients equally to the selected dosing regimen or placebo. The final estimate of treatment effect compares all selepressin-treated patients with all placebo-treated patients. The sample size of 1,800 provides 91% power to detect an increase of 1.5 pressor- and ventilator-free days with a reduction in mortality of 1.5%. The trial received a Special Protocol Assessment agreement from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and is underway in Europe and the United States. SEPSIS-ACT is an innovative trial that addresses both optimal dose and confirmation of benefit, accelerating the evaluation of selepressin while mitigating risks to patients and sponsor through use of response-adaptive randomization, a novel registration endpoint, prespecified futility stopping rules, and a large sample size. Clinical Trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02508649).

Septic shock remains a global health challenge with millions of cases every year, high rates of mortality and morbidity, impaired quality of life among survivors and relatives, and high resource use both in developed and developing nations. Care and outcomes are improving through organisational initiatives and updated clinical practice guidelines based on clinical research mainly carried out by large collaborative networks. This progress is likely to continue through the collaborative work of the established and merging trials groups in many parts of the world and through refined trial methodology and translational work. In this review, international experts summarize the current position of clinical research in septic shock and propose a research agenda to advance this field.

Background: We studied patients from the Protocolized Care in Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial to determine the effects of alternative resuscitation strategies on circulating markers of endothelial cell permeability and hemostasis and the association between biomarkers and mortality., Methods: This was a prospective study of biomarkers of endothelial cell permeability (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 [sFLT-1], angiopoietin 2 [Ang-2]) and biomarkers of hemostasis (von Willebrand factor [vWF], thrombomodulin [TM], tissue plasminogen activator [tPA] in 605 of the 1,341 ProCESS participants in a derivation cohort and 305 participants in a validation cohort. Analyses assessed (1) the impact of varying resuscitation strategies on biomarker profiles and (2) the association of endothelial biomarkers with 60-day in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted in 31 US EDs in adult patients with septic shock. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three resuscitation strategies. Blood samples were collected at enrollment, at 6 h, and at 24 h., Results: There were 116 (19.2%) and 52 (17.0%) deaths in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. There was no significant association between treatment strategy and any biomarker levels. Permeability (Ang-2 and sFLT-1) and hemostasis (vWF, TM, tPA) biomarkers were higher and VEGF levels were lower in nonsurvivors (P < .05 for all). At baseline, sFLT-1 had the highest point estimate for mortality discrimination (derivation area under the curve [AUC], 0.74; validation, 0.70), similar to lactate (AUC, 0.74) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUC, 0.73). In an analysis including all time points and adjusted for age, presence of cancer, and Charlson comorbidity score, the adjusted AUC for sFLT-1 was 0.80., Conclusions: We found no relationship between different resuscitation strategies and biomarker profiles in sepsis, but we did find that elevated levels of endothelial cell biomarkers of permeability and hemostasis were associated with increased mortality., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00510835 and NCT00793442; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After a single-center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta-analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT., Methods: We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource-use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol-based standard-therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1-year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment-by-subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care-delivery characteristics., Results: We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158 .).

Objectives: The Protocol-based Care for Early Septic Shock trial found no differences across alternative resuscitation strategies in all-cause mortality. A separate aim was to determine whether differences in resuscitation strategies affected trajectories of biomarkers of key pathways associated with downstream clinical outcomes of sepsis and whether there were differences in survival across treatment arms for patients with different baseline biomarker profiles., Design: Secondary analysis of a large randomized clinical trial., Setting: Thirty-one U.S. hospitals., Patients: Six hundred twenty-eight patients with septic shock., Interventions: Two resuscitation protocols versus usual care., Measurements and Main Results: We measured a panel of biomarkers representing four pathophysiologic domains: "inflammation" (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin-6, and -10); "coagulation" (D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex); "oxidative stress" (urine isoprostane); and "tissue hypoxia" (lactate) at 0, 6, 24, and 72 hours after treatment. We analyzed whether alternative resuscitation strategies affected biomarker trajectories over 72 hours and whether effects on 90-day hospital mortality varied by baseline (time 0) biomarker profiles-both using regression models with interaction terms for treatment arms. For all baseline biomarkers, higher concentrations were associated with increased risk of death by 90 days. However, there was no significant effect of treatment assignment on subsequent biomarker trajectories. We did find evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect of protocol-based care on mortality for patients with different baseline [interleukin-6] and [interleukin-6] × [interleukin-10] profiles, whereas patients with the lowest quartiles fared better with protocol-based care (odds ratios, 0.32 [0.13-075]; p = 0.01 and 0.32 [0.14-0.73]; p = 0.01, respectively)., Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, alterations in inflammation, coagulation, oxidative stress, and tissue hypoxia are common and associated with adverse outcomes but are not influenced by protocol-based resuscitation compared with usual care. However, contrary to expectation, protocol-based resuscitation appeared to be superior in patients with lower concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers. The mechanisms responsible for this effect are unclear.

Septic shock is a major cause of death worldwide and a considerable healthcare burden in the twenty-first century. Attention has shifted from damaging effects of the proinflammatory response to the detrimental role of antiinflammation, a phenomenon known as sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. Sepsis-induced immunoparalysis may render patients vulnerable to secondary infections and is associated with impaired outcome. The immunoparalysis hypothesis compels us to reevaluate the current management of septic shock and to assess whether we are inadvertently compromising or altering the host immune response. In this perspective, we discuss the potential detrimental role of norepinephrine, the cornerstone treatment for septic shock, in sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. We provide a short overview of the current understanding of the immunologic pathophysiology of sepsis, followed by a detailed description of the immunomodulatory effects of norepinephrine and alternative vasopressors. We conclude that although the development of novel therapies aimed at reversing immunoparalysis is underway, the use of norepinephrine may aggravate the development, extent, and duration of sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. Current in vitro and animal data indicate that norepinephrine treatment exerts immunosuppressive and bacterial growth-promoting effects and may increase susceptibility toward infections. However, evidence in humans is circumstantial, as immunologic effects of norepinephrine have not been investigated properly in experimental or clinical studies. Alternatives such as vasopressin/selepressin, angiotensin II, and phenylephrine could have a fundamental advantage over norepinephrine with respect to their immunologic properties. However, also for these agents, in vivo immunologic data in humans are largely lacking. As such, human studies on the immunomodulatory properties of norepinephrine and viable alternatives are highly warranted.

Importance: Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition., Objective: To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets., Main Outcomes and Measures: Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria., Results: The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets., Conclusions and Relevance: Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.

Rationale: Septic shock is a common cause of acute kidney injury (AKI), and fluid resuscitation is a major part of therapy., Objectives: To determine if structured resuscitation designed to alter fluid, blood, and vasopressor use affects the development or severity of AKI or outcomes., Methods: Ancillary study to the ProCESS (Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock) trial of alternative resuscitation strategies (two protocols vs. usual care) for septic shock., Measurements and Main Results: We studied 1,243 patients and classified AKI using serum creatinine and urine output. We determined recovery status at hospital discharge, examined rates of renal replacement therapy and fluid overload, and measured biomarkers of kidney damage. Among patients without evidence of AKI at enrollment, 37.6% of protocolized care and 38.1% of usual care patients developed kidney injury (P = 0.90). AKI duration (P = 0.59) and rates of renal replacement therapy did not differ between study arms (6.9% for protocolized care and 4.3% for usual care; P = 0.08). Fluid overload occurred in 8.3% of protocolized care and 6.3% of usual care patients (P = 0.26). Among patients with severe AKI, complete and partial recovery was 50.7 and 13.2% for protocolized patients and 49.1 and 13.4% for usual care patients (P = 0.93). Sixty-day hospital mortality was 6.2% for patients without AKI, 16.8% for those with stage 1, and 27.7% for stages 2 to 3., Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, AKI is common and associated with adverse outcomes, but it is not influenced by protocolized resuscitation compared with usual care.

Purpose: To determine whether early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduces mortality compared with other resuscitation strategies for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with septic shock., Methods: Using a search strategy of PubMed, EmBase and CENTRAL, we selected all relevant randomised clinical trials published from January 2000 to January 2015. We translated non-English papers and contacted authors as necessary. Our primary analysis generated a pooled odds ratio (OR) from a fixed-effect model. Sensitivity analyses explored the effect of including non-ED studies, adjusting for study quality, and conducting a random-effects model. Secondary outcomes included organ support and hospital and ICU length of stay., Results: From 2395 initially eligible abstracts, five randomised clinical trials (n = 4735 patients) met all criteria and generally scored high for quality except for lack of blinding. There was no effect on the primary mortality outcome (EGDT: 23.2% [495/2134] versus control: 22.4% [582/2601]; pooled OR 1.01 [95% CI 0.88-1.16], P = 0.9, with heterogeneity [I(2) = 57%; P = 0.055]). The pooled estimate of 90-day mortality from the three recent multicentre studies (n = 4063) also showed no difference [pooled OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86-1.15), P = 0.93] with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0.0%; P = 0.97). EGDT increased vasopressor use (OR 1.25 [95% CI 1.10-1.41]; P < 0.001) and ICU admission [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.82-2.65); P < 0.001]. Including six non-ED randomised trials increased heterogeneity (I(2) = 71%; P < 0.001) but did not change overall results [pooled OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.07); P = 0.33]., Conclusion: EGDT is not superior to usual care for ED patients with septic shock but is associated with increased utilisation of ICU resources.

Background: In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary., Methods: In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support., Results: We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support., Conclusions: In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

Background: The Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock study is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, three-arm, parallel-group trial of alternative resuscitation strategies for early septic shock., Objective: To state our analysis plan for trial data., Methods: Our plan is to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing, with local consensus-based efforts where needed. We examine protocolised care (two experimental approaches) and compare this to usual "wild type" care., Results: Our plan is to address three aims (clinical efficacy, biology of illness and recovery, and costs and cost-effectiveness) and four hypotheses, and we specify rules for handling data and determining outcomes., Conclusion: By using measures to maintain study conduct and analysis rigour, we hope to improve understanding of early septic shock resuscitation and care of patients.

Purpose: To describe and compare the design of three independent but collaborating multicenter trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock., Methods: We reviewed the three current trials, one each in the USA (ProCESS: protocolized care for early septic shock), Australasia (ARISE: Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation), and the UK (ProMISe: protocolised management in sepsis). We used the 2010 CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement and the 2008 CONSORT extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments to describe and compare the underlying rationale, commonalities, and differences., Results: All three trials conform to CONSORT guidelines, address the same fundamental questions, and share key design elements. Each trial is a patient-level, equal-randomized, parallel-group superiority trial that seeks to enroll emergency department patients with inclusion criteria that are consistent with the original early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial (suspected or confirmed infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and refractory hypotension or elevated lactate), is powered to detect a 6–8 % absolute mortality reduction (hospital or 90-day), and uses trained teams to deliver EGDT. Design differences appear to primarily be driven by between-country variation in health care context. The main difference between the trials is the inclusion of a third, alternative resuscitation strategy arm in ProCESS., Conclusions: Harmonization of study design and methods between severe sepsis trials is feasible and may facilitate pooling of data on completion of the trials.

Objective: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008., Design: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development., Methods: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations., Results: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C)., Conclusions: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe 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 this important group of critically ill patients.

Objective: Septic shock is a severe, often terminal, complication of malignancy. For patients without malignancy, outcome from septic shock has improved with new advances in care. We wished to explore whether outcome from septic shock has similarly improved for cancer patients, with regard to implementation of recent adjuvant therapies., Design: An 8-yr retrospective observational study., Setting: A 24-bed medical intensive care unit in a university hospital., Patients: Patients were 238 consecutive cancer patients (solid tumors or hematologic malignancies) with septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit within two consecutive 4-yr periods: 1998-2001 and 2002-2005., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Septic shock occurred in 90 patients in 1998-2001 and 148 in 2002-2005. Management of septic shock between the two periods mostly differed by emergence of adjuvant therapies of sepsis (mainly low-dose glucocorticoids) and intensive insulin therapy and a more frequent use of renal replacement therapy in the recent period. Short-term survival rates were significantly higher during 2002-2005 compared with the previous 4-yr period: 28-day, intensive care unit, and hospital survival rates were 47.3% vs. 27.8% (p = .003), 41.2% vs. 26.7% (p = .02), and 36.5% vs. 21.1% (p = .01), respectively. After adjustment, intensive care unit admission between 2002 and 2005 was an independent favorable prognostic factor for short-term outcome. Improved survival was mainly observed in patients who did not require renal replacement therapy during their stay in the intensive care unit (hospital survival 65% in 2002-2005 vs. 21.4% in 1998-2001, p < .001)., Conclusions: Improved outcome in critically ill cancer patients extended to the subgroup of patients with septic shock. This might be ascribed both to a better selection of patients and to improvements in the care and management, including new therapeutic strategies for sepsis.

Objective: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004., Design: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding., Methods: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations., Results: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B)., Conclusion: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Objective: Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock in a single-center trial. However, implementation of EGDT faces several barriers, including perceived costs and logistic difficulties. We conducted a decision analysis to explore the potential costs and consequences of EGDT implementation., Design: Estimates of effectiveness and resource use were based on data from the original trial and published sources. Implementation costs and lifetime projections were modeled from published sources and tested in sensitivity analyses. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the hospital (short-term) and U.S. societal (lifetime) perspectives, excluding nonhealthcare costs, and applying a 3% annual discount., Setting: Simulation of an average U.S. emergency department., Patients: Total of 1,000 simulation cohorts (n = 263 for each cohort) of adult patients with severe sepsis/septic shock., Interventions: EGDT under three alternative implementation strategies: emergency department-based, mobile intensive care unit team, and intensive care unit-based (after emergency department transfer)., Measurements and Main Results: For an average emergency department, we estimated 91 cases per yr, start-up costs from $12,973 (intensive care unit-based) to $26,952 (emergency department-based), and annual outlay of $100,113. EGDT reduced length of stay such that net hospital costs fell approximately 22.9% ($8,413-$8,978). EGDT implementation had a 99.4% to 99.8% probability of being dominant (saved lives and costs) from the hospital perspective, and cost from $2,749 (intensive care unit-based) to $7019 (emergency department-based) per quality-adjusted life-yr with 96.7% to 97.7% probability of being <$20,000 per quality-adjusted life-yr from the societal perspective. The intensive care unit-based strategy was the least expensive, because of lower start-up costs, but also least effective, because of implementation delay, and all three strategies had similar cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses showed these estimates to be particularly sensitive to EGDT's effect on mortality and intensive care unit length of stay, but insensitive to other variables., Conclusions: EGDT has important start-up costs, and modest delivery costs, but assuming LOS and mortality are reduced, EGDT can be cost-saving to the hospital and associated with favorable lifetime cost-effectiveness projections.

Study Objectives: Most natural history studies of severe sepsis are limited to ICU populations. We describe the onset and timing of severe sepsis during the hospital course for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We also determine the ability of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and other proposed risk stratification scores measured at emergency department (ED) presentation to predict progression to severe sepsis, septic shock, or death., Design: Retrospective analysis of a prospective observational outcome study from the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT)., Setting: Four academic medical centers in the United States and Canada between October 1991 and March 1994., Participants: The 1,339 patients hospitalized for CAP in the PORT study cohort, and a random subset of 686 patients for whom we had information for SIRS criteria., Interventions: None., Measurements and Results: All subjects had infection (CAP). Severe sepsis was defined as new-onset acute organ dysfunction in this cohort, using consensus criteria. Severe sepsis developed in one half of the patients (n = 639, 48%), nonpulmonary organ dysfunction developed in 520 patients (39%), and septic shock developed in 61 subjects (4.5%). Severe sepsis and septic shock were present at ED presentation in 457 patients (71% of severe sepsis cases) and 27 patients (44% of septic shock cases), respectively. While SIRS was common at presentation (82% of the subset of 686 had two SIRS criteria), it was not associated with increased odds for progression to severe sepsis (odds ratios [ORs], 0.65 and 0.89 for two or more SIRS criteria and three or more SIRS criteria, respectively), septic shock (ORs, 0.80 and 0.55), or death (ORs, 0.65 and 0.39), with poor discrimination (all receiver operating characteristic [ROC] areas under the curve < 0.5). The pneumonia severity index was associated with severe sepsis (p < 0.001) with moderate discrimination (ROC, 0.63)., Conclusions: Severe sepsis is common in hospitalized CAP patients, occurring early in the hospital course. SIRS criteria do not appear to be useful predictors for progression to severe sepsis in CAP.