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.

Both dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line vasopressor agents in the treatment of shock. There is a continuing controversy about whether one agent is superior to the other.

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.

Shock is the clinical expression of circulatory failure that results in inadequate cellular oxygen utilization. Shock is a common condition in critical care, affecting about one third of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).¹ A diagnosis of shock is based on clinical, hemodynamic, and biochemical signs, which can broadly be summarized into three components. First, systemic arterial hypotension is usually present, but the magnitude of the hypotension may be only moderate, especially in patients with chronic hypertension. Typically, in adults, the systolic arterial pressure is less than 90 mm Hg or the mean arterial pressure is less than 70 mm Hg, with associated tachycardia. Second, there are clinical signs of tissue hypoperfusion, which are apparent through the three “windows” of the body²: cutaneous (skin that is cold and clammy, with vasoconstriction and cyanosis, findings that are most evident in low-flow states), renal (urine output of 1.5 mmol per liter) in acute circulatory failure.

Microvascular blood flow alterations are frequent in animal models of sepsis and may impair tissue oxygenation. We hypothesized that alterations of the microcirculation are present in patients with sepsis. We used an orthogonal polarization spectral imaging technique to investigate the sublingual microcirculation in 10 healthy volunteers, 16 patients before cardiac surgery, 10 acutely ill patients without sepsis (intensive care unit control subjects), and 50 patients with severe sepsis. The effects of topical application of acetylcholine (10⁻² M) were tested in 11 patients with sepsis. In each subject, five to seven sublingual areas were recorded and analyzed semiquantitatively. Data were analyzed with nonparametric tests and are presented as medians (25th–75th percentiles). No significant difference in microvascular blood flow was observed between healthy volunteers and patients before cardiac surgery or intensive care unit control subjects. The density of all vessels was significantly reduced in patients with severe sepsis (4.5 [4.2–5.2] versus 5.4 [5.4–6.3]/mm in volunteers, p < 0.01). The proportion of perfused small (< 20 μm) vessels was reduced in patients with sepsis (48 [33–61] versus 90 [89–92]% in volunteers, p < 0.001). These alterations were more severe in nonsurvivors. The topical application of acetylcholine totally reversed these alterations. In conclusion, microvascular blood flow alterations are frequent in patients with sepsis and are more severe in patients with a worse outcome.