Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
    • Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
      • 1-Minute Consult
      • Commentary
      • Current Drug Therapy
      • Editorial
      • Guidelines to Practice
      • Interpreting Key Trials
      • Letter to the Editor
      • Review
      • Smart Testing
      • Symptoms to Diagnosis
      • The Clinical Picture
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
  • COVID-19
    • Curbside Consults Overview
    • Pulmonary/ICU
    • Patient Subsets & Specific Organ Involvement
    • Therapies
    • Imaging & Procedures
    • Patients with Underlying Disease
    • Virus Background & Testing
    • Healthcare System Practice
  • Conference Coverage
    • ASH Annual Meeting
    • AHA Sessions 2020
    • IDWeek 2020
    • CHEST 2020
    • ADA 2020
    • ACC 2020
  • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
    • Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
  • COVID-19
    • Curbside Consults Overview
    • Pulmonary/ICU
    • Patient Subsets & Specific Organ Involvement
    • Therapies
    • Imaging & Procedures
    • Patients with Underlying Disease
    • Virus Background & Testing
    • Healthcare System Practice
  • Conference Coverage
    • ASH Annual Meeting
    • AHA Sessions 2020
    • IDWeek 2020
    • CHEST 2020
    • ADA 2020
    • ACC 2020
  • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Contact
Review

Sepsis and septic shock: Guideline-based management

Siddharth Dugar, MD, Chirag Choudhary, MD, MBA and Abhijit Duggal, MD, MPH, MSc, FACP
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine January 2020, 87 (1) 53-64; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.87a.18143
Siddharth Dugar
Department of Critical Care, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chirag Choudhary
Department of Critical Care, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abhijit Duggal
Department of Critical Care, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: duggala2@ccf.org
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

CME/MOC

  • Release date: January 1, 2020
  • Expiration date: December 31, 2020
CME/MOC Accreditation Information.

ABSTRACT

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction that results from the body’s response to infection. It requires prompt recognition, appropriate antibiotics, careful hemodynamic support, and control of the source of infection. With the trend in management moving away from protocolized care in favor of appropriate usual care, an understanding of sepsis physiology and best practice guidelines is critical.

  • Copyright © 2020 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
View Full Text

CME/MOC

Clicking the link below will connect you to begin the credit-claiming process for CME and MOC. After clicking on the link, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on “Complete the CME/MOC Process.” You will need your myCME login information to access this.

Click here to complete the CME/MOC process.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Angus DC,
    2. Linde-Zwirble WT,
    3. Lidicker J,
    4. Clermont G,
    5. Carcillo J,
    6. Pin-sky MR
    . Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001; 29(7):1303–1310. doi:10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Hall MJ,
    2. Williams SN,
    3. DeFrances CJ,
    4. Golosinskiy A
    . Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: a challenge for patients and hospitals. NCHS Data Brief 2011; (62):1–8. pmid:22142805
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Dellinger RP
    . The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: where have we been and where are we going? Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82(4):237–244. doi:10.3949/ccjm.82gr.15001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Bone RC,
    2. Balk RA,
    3. Cerra FB, et al
    . Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 1992; 101:(6)1644–1655. doi:10.1378/chest.101.6.1644
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Levy MM,
    2. Fink MP,
    3. Marshall JC, et al. SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS
    . 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003; 31(4):1250–1256. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3B
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Levy MM,
    2. Rhodes A,
    3. Phillips GS, et al
    . Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med 2015; 43(1):3–12. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. National Quality Forum (NQF)
    . NQF revises sepsis measure. www.qualityforum.org/NQF_Revises_Sepsis_Measure.aspx. Accessed December 11, 2019.
  8. ↵
    1. Singer M,
    2. Deutschman CS,
    3. Seymour CW, et al
    . The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315(8):801–810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Vincent JL,
    2. Moreno R,
    3. Takala J, et al
    . The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22(7):707–710. pmid:8844239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Fernando SM,
    2. Tran A,
    3. Taljaard M, et al
    . Systemic inflamatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction: insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168(4):266–275. doi:10.7326/M17-2820
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Gül F,
    2. Arslantas MK,
    3. Cinel I,
    4. Kumar A
    . Changing definitions of sepsis. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim 2017; 45(3):129–138. doi:10.5152/TJAR.2017.93753
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Seymour CW,
    2. Liu VX,
    3. Iwashyna TJ, et al
    . Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315(8):762–774. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0288
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Williams JM,
    2. Greenslade JH,
    3. McKenzie JV,
    4. Chu K,
    5. Brown AFT,
    6. Lipman J
    . Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction: insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection. Chest 2017; 151(3):586–596. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.057
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Kumar A,
    2. Ellis P,
    3. Arabi Y, et al. Cooperative Antimicrobial Therapy of Septic Shock Database Research Group
    . Initiation of inappropriate antimicrobial therapy results in a fivefold reduction of survival in human septic shock. Chest 2009; 136(5):1237–1248. doi:10.1378/chest.09-0087
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kumar A,
    2. Roberts D,
    3. Wood KE, et al
    . Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34(6):1589–1596. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Ferrer R,
    2. Martin-Loeches I,
    3. Phillips G, et al
    . Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med 2014; 42(8):1749–1755. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000330
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Rhodes A,
    2. Evans LE,
    3. Alhazzani W, et al
    . Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43(3):304–377. doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Micek ST,
    2. Welch EC,
    3. Khan J, et al
    . Empiric combination antibiotic therapy is associated with improved outcome against sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria: a retrospective analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54(5):1742–1748. doi:10.1128/AAC.01365-09
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Martin GS,
    2. Mannino DM,
    3. Eaton S,
    4. Moss M
    . The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(16):1546–1554. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022139
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Pappas PG,
    2. Kauffman CA,
    3. Andes DR, et al
    . Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62(4):e1–e50. doi:10.1093/cid/civ933
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Garnacho-Montero J,
    2. Gutiérrez-Pizarraya A,
    3. Escoresca-Ortega A, et al
    . De-escalation of empirical therapy is associated with lower mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40(1):32–40. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-3077-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Paonessa JR,
    2. Shah RD,
    3. Pickens CI, et al
    . Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in BAL. Chest 2019; 155(5):999–1007. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Parente DM,
    2. Cunha CB,
    3. Mylonakis E,
    4. Timbrook TT
    . The clinical utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal screening to rule out MRSA pneumonia: a diagnostic meta-analysis with antimicrobial stewardship implications. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 67(1):1–7. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy024
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Chastre J,
    2. Wolff M,
    3. Fagon JY, et al. PneumA Trial Group
    . Comparison of 8 vs 15 days of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 290(19):2588–2598. doi:10.1001/jama.290.19.2588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Pugh R,
    2. Grant C,
    3. Cooke RP,
    4. Dempsey G
    . Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (10):CD007577. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007577.pub2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Sakr Y,
    2. Rubatto Birri PN,
    3. Kotfis K, et al. Intensive Care Over Nations Investigators
    . Higher fluid balance increases the risk of death from sepsis: results from a large international audit. Crit Care Med 2017; 45(3):386–394. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002189
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Malbrain ML,
    2. Marik PE,
    3. Witters I, et al
    . Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2014; 46(5):361–380. doi:10.5603/AIT.2014.0060
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Seymour CW,
    2. Gesten F,
    3. Prescott HC, et al
    . Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 2017; 376(23):2235–2244. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1703058
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Marik PE,
    2. Baram M,
    3. Vahid B
    . Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008; 134(1):172–178. doi:10.1378/chest.07-2331.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Bednarczyk JM,
    2. Fridfinnson JA,
    3. Kumar A, et al
    . Incorporating dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness into goal-directed therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2017; 45(9):1538–1545. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002554
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Marik PE,
    2. Cavallazzi R,
    3. Vasu T,
    4. Hirani A
    . Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009; 37(9):2642–2647. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a590da
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Monnet X,
    2. Marik P,
    3. Teboul JL
    . Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42(12):1935–1947. doi:10.1007/s00134-015-4134-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Cecconi M,
    2. De Backer D,
    3. Antonelli M, et al
    . Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40(12):1795–1815. doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Mahjoub Y,
    2. Lejeune V,
    3. Muller L, et al
    . Evaluation of pulse pressure variation validity criteria in critically ill patients: a prospective observational multicentre point-prevalence study. Br J Anaesth 2014; 112(4):681–685. doi:10.1093/bja/aet442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Cherpanath TG,
    2. Hirsch A,
    3. Geerts BF, et al
    . Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2016; 44(5):981–991. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001556
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Jansen TC,
    2. van Bommel J,
    3. Schoonderbeek FJ, et al. LACTATE study group
    . Early lactate-guided therapy in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 182(6):752–761. doi:10.1164/rccm.200912-1918OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Casserly B,
    2. Phillips GS,
    3. Schorr C, et al
    . Lactate measurements in sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion: results from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database. Crit Care Med 2015; 43(3):567–573. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000742
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Jones AE,
    2. Shapiro NI,
    3. Trzeciak S,
    4. Arnold RC,
    5. Claremont HA,
    6. Kline JA; Emergency Medicine Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Investigators
    . Lactate clearance vs central venous oxygen saturation as goals of early sepsis therapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2010; 303(8):739–746. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.158
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Hernández G,
    2. Ospina-Tascón GA,
    3. Damiani LP, et al
    . Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019; 321(7):654–664. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0071
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Semler MW,
    2. Self WH,
    3. Wanderer JP, et al. SMART Investigators and the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group
    . Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(9):829–839. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1711584
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Young P,
    2. Bailey M,
    3. Beasley R, et al. SPLIT Investigators; ANZICS CTG
    . Effect of a buffered crystalloid solution vs saline on acute kidney injury among patients in the intensive care unit: the SPLIT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015; 314(16):1701–1710. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12334
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Krajewski ML,
    2. Raghunathan K,
    3. Paluszkiewicz SM,
    4. Schermer CR,
    5. Shaw AD
    . Meta-analysis of high- versus low-chloride content in perioperative and critical care fluid resuscitation. Br J Surg 2015; 102(1):24–36. doi:10.1002/bjs.9651
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Finfer S,
    2. Bellomo R,
    3. Boyce N,
    4. French J,
    5. Myburgh J,
    6. Norton R; SAFE Study Investigators
    . A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(22):2247–2256. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa040232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Caironi P,
    2. Gattinoni L
    . The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus 2009; 7(4):259–267. doi:10.2450/2009.0002-09
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Siami S,
    3. Jaber S, et al. CRISTAL Investigators
    . Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: the CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA 2013; 310(17):1809–1817. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280502
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Jiang L,
    2. Jiang S,
    3. Zhang M,
    4. Zheng Z,
    5. Ma Y
    . Albumin versus other fluids for fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9(12):e114666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Perner A,
    2. Haase N,
    3. Guttormsen AB, et al. 6S Trial Group; Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group
    . Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(2):124–134. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1204242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Jimenez MF,
    2. Marshall JC; International Sepsis Forum
    . Source control in the management of sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27(suppl 1):S49–S62. pmid:11307370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Asfar P,
    2. Meziani F,
    3. Hamel JF, et al. SEPSISPAM Investigators
    . High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(17):1583–1593. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1312173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Leone M,
    2. Asfar P,
    3. Radermacher P,
    4. Vincent JL,
    5. Martin C
    . Optimizing mean arterial pressure in septic shock: a critical reappraisal of the literature. Crit Care 2015; 19:101. doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0794-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. De Backer D,
    2. Biston P,
    3. Devriendt J, et al. SOAP II Investigators
    . Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(9):779–789. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. De Backer D,
    2. Aldecoa C,
    3. Njimi H,
    4. Vincent JL
    . Dopamine versus norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2012; 40(3):725–730. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823778ee.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Avni T,
    2. Lador A,
    3. Lev S,
    4. Leibovici L,
    5. Paul M,
    6. Grossman A
    . Vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10(8):e0129305. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129305
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Gamper G,
    2. Havel C,
    3. Arrich J, et al
    . Vasopressors for hypotensive shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2:CD003709. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003709.pub4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Scheeren TWL,
    2. Bakker J,
    3. De Backer D, et al
    . Current use of vasopressors in septic shock. Ann Intensive Care 2019; 9(1):20. doi:10.1186/s13613-019-0498-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Gordon AC,
    2. Mason AJ,
    3. Thirunavukkarasu N, et al. VANISH Investigators
    . Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016; 316(5):509–518. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.10485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Russell JA,
    2. Walley KR,
    3. Singer J, et al. VASST Investigators
    . Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(9):877–887. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa067373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Levy B,
    2. Perez P,
    3. Perny J,
    4. Thivilier C,
    5. Gerard A
    . Comparison of norepinephrine-dobutamine to epinephrine for hemodynamics, lactate metabolism, and organ function variables in cardiogenic shock. A prospective, randomized pilot study. Crit Care Med 2011; 39(3):450–455. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ffe0eb
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Vail E,
    2. Gershengorn HB,
    3. Hua M,
    4. Walkey AJ,
    5. Rubenfeld G,
    6. Wunsch H
    . Association between US norepinephrine shortage and mortality among patients with septic shock. JAMA 2017; 317(14):1433–1442. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.2841
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Khanna A,
    2. English SW,
    3. Wang XS, et al. ATHOS-3 Investigators
    . Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377(5):419–430. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1704154
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Rivers E,
    2. Nguyen B,
    3. Havstad S, et al. Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group
    . Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med 2001; 345(19):1368–1377. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Vignon P,
    3. Renault A, et al. CATS Study Group
    . Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007; 370(9588):676–684. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61344-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Chang W,
    2. Xie JF,
    3. Xu JY,
    4. Yang Y
    . Effect of levosimendan on mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ Open 2018; 8(3):e019338. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019338
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Barton P,
    2. Garcia J,
    3. Kouatli A, et al
    . Hemodynamic effects of i.v. milrinone lactate in pediatric patients with septic shock. A prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, interventional study. Chest 1996; 109(5):1302–1312. doi:10.1378/chest.109.5.1302
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Pastores SM,
    3. Rochwerg B, et al
    . Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in critically ill patients (Part I): Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2017. Crit Care Med 2017; 45(12):2078–2088. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002737
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Renault A,
    3. Brun-Buisson C, et al. CRICS-TRIGGERSEP Network
    . Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(9):809–818. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1705716
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Venkatesh B,
    2. Finfer S,
    3. Cohen J, et al. ADRENAL Trial Investigators and the Australian–New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
    . Adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(9):797–808. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1705835
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Annane D,
    2. Sébille V,
    3. Charpentier C, et al
    . Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock. JAMA 2002; 288(7):862–871. doi:10.1001/jama.288.7.862
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Sprung CL,
    2. Annane D,
    3. Keh D, et al. CORTICUS Study Group
    . Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2008; 358(2):111–124. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa071366
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Keh D,
    2. Trips E,
    3. Marx G, et al. SepNet–Critical Care Trials Group
    . Effect of hydrocortisone on development of shock among patients with severe sepsis: the HYPRESS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016; 316(17):1775–1785. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14799
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Rochwerg B,
    2. Oczkowski SJ,
    3. Siemieniuk RAC, et al
    . Corticosteroids in sepsis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2018; 46(9):1411–1420. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Annane D,
    2. Bellissant E,
    3. Bollaert PE,
    4. Briegel J,
    5. Keh D,
    6. Kupfer Y
    . Corticosteroids for treating sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (12):CD002243. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002243.pub3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    1. Cuthbertson BH,
    2. Sprung CL,
    3. Annane D, et al
    . The effects of etomidate on adrenal responsiveness and mortality in patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35(11):1868–1876. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1603-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Rello J,
    2. Valenzuela-Sánchez F,
    3. Ruiz-Rodriguez M,
    4. Moyano S
    . Sepsis: a review of advances in management. Adv Ther 2017; 34(11):2393–2411. doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0622-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. Matthaiou DK,
    2. Ntani G,
    3. Kontogiorgi M,
    4. Poulakou G,
    5. Armaganidis A,
    6. Dimopoulos G
    . An ESICM systematic review and meta-analysis of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy algorithms in adult critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38(6):940–949. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2563-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Wacker C,
    2. Prkno A,
    3. Brunkhorst FM,
    4. Schlattmann P
    . Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16(7):819–827. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00053-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. ↵
    1. de Jong E,
    2. van Oers JA,
    3. Beishuizen A, et al
    . Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16(7):819–827. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00053-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Lam SW,
    2. Bauer SR,
    3. Fowler R,
    4. Duggal A
    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of procalcitonin-guidance versus usual care for antimicrobial management in critically ill patients: focus on subgroups based on antibiotic initiation, cessation, or mixed strategies. Crit Care Med 2018; 46(5):684–690. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002953
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Aguado JM,
    2. Vázquez L,
    3. Fernández-Ruiz M, et al. PCRAGA Study Group; Spanish Stem Cell Transplantation Group; Study Group of Medical Mycology of the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases
    . Serum galactomannan versus a combination of galactomannan and polymerase chain reaction-based Aspergillus DNA detection for early therapy of invasive aspergillosis in high-risk hematological patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60(3):405–414. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu833
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Faix JD
    . Biomarkers of sepsis. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2013; 50(1):23–36. doi:10.3109/10408363.2013.764490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Dellinger RP,
    2. Levy MM,
    3. Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup
    . Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 2013; 41(2):580–637. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. ARISE Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group;
    2. Peake SL,
    3. Delaney A,
    4. Bailey M, et al
    . Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(16):1496–1506. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1404380
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mouncey PR,
    2. Osborn TM,
    3. Power GS, et al. ProMISe Trial Investigators
    . Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(14):1301–1311. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500896
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. ProCESS Investigators;
    2. Yealy DM,
    3. Kellum JA,
    4. Huang DT, et al
    . A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(18):1683–1693. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401602
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. PRISM Investigators;
    2. Rowan KM,
    3. Angus DC,
    4. Bailey M, et al
    . Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock—a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 2017; 376(23):2223–2234. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1701380
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Pepper DJ,
    2. Jaswal D,
    3. Sun J,
    4. Welsh J,
    5. Natanson C,
    6. Eichacker PQ
    . Evidence underpinning the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ severe sepsis and septic shock management bundle (SEP-1): a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2018; 168(8):558–568. doi:10.7326/M17-2947
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. ↵
    1. Klompas M,
    2. Rhee C
    . The CMS sepsis mandate: right disease, wrong measure. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165(7):517–518. doi:10.7326/M16-0588
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. ↵
    1. Rhee C,
    2. Filbin MR,
    3. Massaro AF, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Epicenters Program
    . Compliance with the national SEP-1 quality measure and association with sepsis outcomes: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Crit Care Med 2018; 46(10):1585–1591. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000003261
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Marik PE,
    2. Malbrain MLNG
    . The SEP-1 quality mandate may be harmful: how to drown a patient with 30 mL per kg fluid! Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2017; 49(5):323–328. doi:10.5603/AIT.a2017.0056
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. ↵
    1. Bhattacharjee P,
    2. Edelson DP,
    3. Churpek MM
    . Identifying patients with sepsis on the hospital wards. Chest 2017; 151(4):898–907. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Weiss CH,
    2. Moazed F,
    3. McEvoy CA, et al
    . Prompting physicians to address a daily checklist and process of care and clinical outcomes: a single-site study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184(6):680–686. doi:10.1164/rccm.201101-0037OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Scheer CS,
    2. Fuchs C,
    3. Kuhn SO, et al
    . Quality improvement initiative for severe sepsis and septic shock reduces 90-day mortality: a 7.5-year observational study. Crit Care Med 2017; 45(2):241–252. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002069.
    OpenUrlCrossRef

This article requires you to have a ccjm.org account to view the full text. If you already have an account, you may log in below to view this article along with all other CCJM content. If you do not have an account, register here. It’s free!

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?
PreviousNext
Back to top

Registration is Now Required for Free Access to CCJM Content

Register once and log in for full access to articles and content. Click “Register” in the upper right corner and follow the simple instructions to create a new account.

If you are using a mobile device, click on the settings icon to access the Register link.

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 87 (1)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 87, Issue 1
1 Jan 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sepsis and septic shock: Guideline-based management
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Sepsis and septic shock: Guideline-based management
Siddharth Dugar, Chirag Choudhary, Abhijit Duggal
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jan 2020, 87 (1) 53-64; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.18143

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Sepsis and septic shock: Guideline-based management
Siddharth Dugar, Chirag Choudhary, Abhijit Duggal
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Jan 2020, 87 (1) 53-64; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.18143
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMON AND LIFE-THREATENING
    • DEFINITIONS HAVE EVOLVED
    • TOOLS FOR IDENTIFYING HIGH RISK: SOFA AND qSOFA
    • ANTIMICROBIAL THERAPY
    • FLUID RESUSCITATION
    • EARLY SOURCE CONTROL
    • RESTORING BLOOD PRESSURE
    • ROLE OF CORTICOSTEROIDS IS QUESTIONED
    • BIOMARKERS
    • USUAL CARE VS PROTOCOLIZED INITIAL RESUSCITATION
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluation and management of shock in patients with COVID-19
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Perioperative management of pregnant women undergoing nonobstetric surgery
  • Long-term consequences of prematurity
  • Autonomous sensory meridian response: Your patients already know, do you?
Show more Review

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit
  • Advertise Contact

Info For

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertisers
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2021 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire