作者
Laura Evans,Andrew Rhodes,Waleed Alhazzani,Massimo Antonelli,Craig M. Coopersmith,Craig French,Flávia Ribeiro Machado,Lauralyn McIntyre,Marlies Ostermann,Hallie C. Prescott,Christa Schorr,Steven Q. Simpson,W. Joost Wiersinga,Fayez Alshamsi,Derek C. Angus,Yaseen M. Arabi,Luciano César Pontes Azevedo,Richard Beale,Gregory J. Beilman,Emilie P. Belley‐Côté,Lisa Burry,Maurizio Cecconi,John Centofanti,Angel Coz Yataco,Jan J. De Waele,R. Phillip Dellinger,Kent Doi,Bin Du,Elisa Estenssoro,Ricard Ferrer,Charles D. Gomersall,Carol Hodgson,Morten Hylander Møller,Theodore J. Iwashyna,Shevin T. Jacob,Ruth Kleinpell,Michael Klompas,Younsuck Koh,Anand Kumar,Arthur Kwizera,Suzana Margareth Lobo,Henry Masur,Steven McGloughlin,Sangeeta Mehta,Yatin Mehta,Mervyn Mer,Mark Nunnally,Simon Oczkowski,Tiffany M. Osborn,Elizabeth Papathanassoglou,Anders Perner,Michael A. Puskarich,Jason A. Roberts,William D. Schweickert,Maureen A. Seckel,Jonathan Sevransky,Charles L. Sprung,Tobias Welte,Janice L. Zimmerman,Mitchell M. Levy
摘要
Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.