Objective To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. Design A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. Results The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Conclusions Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Objective: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.” Design: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Conclusions: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is widely used in the acute care setting for acute respiratory failure (ARF) across a variety of aetiologies. This document provides European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society recommendations for the clinical application of NIV based on the most current literature.The guideline committee was composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in the field of NIV. The committee developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology for each actionable question. The GRADE Evidence to Decision framework in the guideline development tool was used to generate recommendations. A number of topics were addressed using technical summaries without recommendations and these are discussed in the supplementary material.This guideline committee developed recommendations for 11 actionable questions in a PICO (population–intervention–comparison–outcome) format, all addressing the use of NIV for various aetiologies of ARF. The specific conditions where recommendations were made include exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiogenic pulmonary oedema,de novohypoxaemic respiratory failure, immunocompromised patients, chest trauma, palliation, post-operative care, weaning and post-extubation.This document summarises the current state of knowledge regarding the role of NIV in ARF. Evidence-based recommendations provide guidance to relevant stakeholders.

A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patient-use aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available.The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel.Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.

Rationale: Oxygen is commonly administered after extubation. Although several devices are available, data about their clinical efficacy are scarce. Objectives: To compare the effects of the Venturi mask and the nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy on PaO2/FiO2SET ratio after extubation. Secondary endpoints were to assess effects on patient discomfort, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Randomized, controlled, open-label trial on 105 patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than or equal to 300 immediately before extubation. The Venturi mask (n = 52) or NHF (n = 53) were applied for 48 hours postextubation. Measurements and Main Results: PaO2/FiO2SET, patient discomfort caused by the interface and by symptoms of airways dryness (on a 10-point numerical rating scale), interface displacements, oxygen desaturations, need for ventilator support, and reintubation were assessed up to 48 hours after extubation. From the 24th hour, PaO2/FiO2SET was higher with the NHF (287 ± 74 vs. 247 ± 81 at 24 h; P = 0.03). Discomfort related both to the interface and to airways dryness was better with NHF (respectively, 2.6 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.3 at 24 h, P = 0.006; 2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 2.4 at 24 h, P = 0.002). Fewer patients had interface displacements (32% vs. 56%; P = 0.01), oxygen desaturations (40% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), required reintubation (4% vs. 21%; P = 0.01), or any form of ventilator support (7% vs. 35%; P < 0.001) in the NHF group. Conclusions: Compared with the Venturi mask, NHF results in better oxygenation for the same set FiO2 after extubation. Use of NHF is associated with better comfort, fewer desaturations and interface displacements, and a lower reintubation rate. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01575353).