Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sepsis, a complex physiological and metabolic response to infection, is a common reason for admission to an intensive care unit. This review examines the basis, diagnosis, and current treatment of this disorder. Sepsis is one of the oldest and most elusive syndromes in medicine. Hippocrates claimed that sepsis (σήψις) was the process by which flesh rots, swamps generate foul airs, and wounds fester. 1 Galen later considered sepsis a laudable event, necessary for wound healing. 2 With the confirmation of germ theory by Semmelweis, Pasteur, and others, sepsis was recast as a systemic infection, often described as “blood poisoning,” and assumed to be the result of the host's invasion by pathogenic organisms that then spread in the bloodstream. However, with the advent of modern antibiotics, germ theory did not fully explain the pathogenesis of . . .

In this multicenter, open-label trial, patients with septic shock were treated to maintain a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg or 65 to 70 mm Hg. There were no significant between-group differences in 28-day mortality or in 90-day mortality. Septic shock is characterized by arterial hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation. The guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 1 recommended initial resuscitation with vasopressors to reverse hypotension, with a mean arterial pressure target of at least 65 mm Hg (grade 1C, indicating a strong recommendation with a low level of evidence). This recommendation is based on the findings of small studies, which showed no significant differences in lactate levels or regional blood flow when the mean arterial pressure was elevated to more than 65 mm Hg in patients with septic shock. 2 , 3 However, as emphasized by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, . . .

Objective Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. Methods The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575–590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. Results Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. Conclusions This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock.

Purpose We assessed the effects of a protocol restricting resuscitation fluid vs. a standard care protocol after initial resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods We randomised 151 adult patients with septic shock who had received initial fluid resuscitation in nine Scandinavian ICUs. In the fluid restriction group fluid boluses were permitted only if signs of severe hypoperfusion occurred, while in the standard care group fluid boluses were permitted as long as circulation continued to improve. Results The co-primary outcome measures, resuscitation fluid volumes at day 5 and during ICU stay, were lower in the fluid restriction group than in the standard care group [mean differences −1.2 L (95 % confidence interval −2.0 to −0.4); p  < 0.001 and −1.4 L (−2.4 to −0.4) respectively; p  < 0.001]. Neither total fluid inputs and balances nor serious adverse reactions differed statistically significantly between the groups. Major protocol violations occurred in 27/75 patients in the fluid restriction group. Ischaemic events occurred in 3/75 in the fluid restriction group vs. 9/76 in the standard care group (odds ratio 0.32; 0.08–1.27; p  = 0.11), worsening of acute kidney injury in 27/73 vs. 39/72 (0.46; 0.23–0.92; p  = 0.03), and death by 90 days in 25/75 vs. 31/76 (0.71; 0.36–1.40; p  = 0.32). Conclusions A protocol restricting resuscitation fluid successfully reduced volumes of resuscitation fluid compared with a standard care protocol in adult ICU patients with septic shock. The patient-centred outcomes all pointed towards benefit with fluid restriction, but our trial was not powered to show differences in these exploratory outcomes. Trial registration NCT02079402.

Vasoplegia is the syndrome of pathological low systemic vascular resistance, the dominant clinical feature of which is reduced blood pressure in the presence of a normal or raised cardiac output. The vasoplegic syndrome is encountered in many clinical scenarios, including septic shock, post-cardiac bypass and after surgery, burns and trauma, but despite this, uniform clinical definitions are lacking, which renders translational research in this area challenging. We discuss the role of vasoplegia in these contexts and the criteria that are used to describe it are discussed. Intrinsic processes which may drive vasoplegia, such as nitric oxide, prostanoids, endothelin-1, hydrogen sulphide and reactive oxygen species production, are reviewed and potential for therapeutic intervention explored. Extrinsic drivers, including those mediated by glucocorticoid, catecholamine and vasopressin responsiveness of the blood vessels, are also discussed. The optimum balance between maintaining adequate systemic vascular resistance against the potentially deleterious effects of treatment with catecholamines is as yet unclear, but development of novel vasoactive agents may facilitate greater understanding of the role of the differing pathways in the development of vasoplegia. In turn, this may provide insights into the best way to care for patients with this common, multifactorial condition.

Prior to 2001 there was no standard for early management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. In the presence of standard or usual care, the prevailing mortality was over 40-50 %. In response, a systems-based approach, similar to that in acute myocardial infarction, stroke and trauma, called early goal-directed therapy was compared to standard care and this clinical trial resulted in a significant mortality reduction. Since the publication of that trial, similar outcome benefits have been reported in over 70 observational and randomized controlled studies comprising over 70,000 patients. As a result, early goal-directed therapy was largely incorporated into the first 6 hours of sepsis management (resuscitation bundle) adopted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and disseminated internationally as the standard of care for early sepsis management. Recently a trio of trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe), while reporting an all-time low sepsis mortality, question the continued need for all of the elements of early goal-directed therapy or the need for protocolized care for patients with severe and septic shock. A review of the early hemodynamic pathogenesis, historical development, and definition of early goal-directed therapy, comparing trial conduction methodology and the changing landscape of sepsis mortality, are essential for an appropriate interpretation of these trials and their conclusions.

Sepsis has been around since the dawn of time, having been described for more than 2000 years, although clinical definitions are recent. The consensus sepsis definitions have permitted worldwide epidemiological studies of sepsis to be conducted. We now recognize the common nature of sepsis and the consistency of its disease - particularly severe sepsis and septic shock. The incidence of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock continues to increase, and although Gram-positive bacterial pathogens remain the most common cause of sepsis, fungal organisms are increasing rapidly. We have made progress over the past half-century in identifying and treating patients with sepsis, and decreasing fatality rates reflect this progress. However, owing to the increasing incidence of sepsis, the number of people who die each year continues to increase. The mortality with sepsis, particularly related to treating organ dysfunction, remains a priority to clinicians worldwide and is deserving of greater public health attention.

Purpose The clinical significance of septic myocardial dysfunction is controversial, a fact that may be explained by the influence of loading conditions. Many indices may be useful to characterize cardiac function during septic shock, but their feasibility and physiological coherence in the clinical setting are unknown. Methods Hemodynamic and echocardiographic data with tissue Doppler and speckle tracking were prospectively recorded on the first 3 days of human septic shock. Hypokinesia, normokinesia, and hyperkinesia were defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <45, 45–60, and >60%, respectively. Twelve hemodynamic indices exploring contractility and loading conditions were assessed and analyzed. Results Two hundred and ninety-seven echocardiographies were performed in 132 patients. During the first 24 h (H 1–24 ), 48 (36.4%) patients were hyperkinetic, 55 (41.7%) were normokinetic, and 29 (22.0%) patients were hypokinetic. Thirteen patients had a secondary hypokinesia absent at H 1–24 but present at H 25–48 or H 49–72 , for an overall incidence of 42 (31.8%) during the first 3 days. Despite a limited feasibility (<50%), global LV longitudinal peak systolic strain was impaired in a majority (>70%) of the patients assessed, including all those with depressed LVEF, and declined early in patients whose LVEF secondarily deteriorated. Most contractility indices were inversely correlated with afterload indices. Hyperkinetic patients exhibited the worst reduction in afterload indices. Hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with LV hyperkinesia than in their counterparts: 30 (62.5%) vs. 35 (41.7%), p  = 0.02. Conclusions Speckle tracking-derived strain was reduced in the majority of patients with septic shock, revealing covert septic myocardial dysfunction, but had poor feasibility. We found an inverse correlation between most of the contractility and afterload indices. Precise evaluation of afterload is crucial for adequate interpretation of LV systolic function in this setting.

International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels. Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.

To determine the frequency and spectrum of myocardial dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock using transthoracic echocardiography and to evaluate the impact of the myocardial dysfunction types on mortality. A prospective study of 106 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock was conducted from August 1, 2007, to January 31, 2009. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography within 24 hours of admission to the intensive care unit. Myocardial dysfunction was classified as left ventricular (LV) diastolic, LV systolic, and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Frequency of myocardial dysfunction was calculated, and demographic, hemodynamic, and physiologic variables and mortality were compared between the myocardial dysfunction types and patients without cardiac dysfunction. The frequency of myocardial dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock was 64% (n=68). Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction was present in 39 patients (37%), LV systolic dysfunction in 29 (27%), and RV dysfunction in 33 (31%). There was significant overlap. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 36% and 57%, respectively. There was no difference in mortality between patients with normal myocardial function and those with left, right, or any ventricular dysfunction. Myocardial dysfunction is frequent in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and has a wide spectrum including LV diastolic, LV systolic, and RV dysfunction types. Although evaluation for the presence and type of myocardial dysfunction is important for tailoring specific therapy, its presence in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock was not associated with increased 30-day or 1-year mortality.