Medication Summary
The goals of pharmacotherapy are to eradicate the infection, reduce morbidity, and prevent complications.
Antibiotics, Other
Class Summary
Empiric antimicrobial therapy must be comprehensive and should cover all likely pathogens in the context of the clinical setting.
Imipenem/cilastatin (Primaxin IV)
Imipenem-cilastatin is a carbapenem with activity against most gram-positive organisms (except MRSA), gram-negative organisms, and anaerobes. It is used for treatment of multiple-organism infections in which other agents do not have wide-spectrum coverage or are contraindicated owing to their potential for toxicity.
Meropenem (Merrem)
Meropenem is a carbapenem with slightly increased activity against gram-negative organisms and slightly decreased activity against staphylococci and streptococci compared with imipenem. It is less likely to cause seizures and has superior penetration of the blood-brain barrier compared with imipenem.
Piperacillin and tazobactam (Zosyn)
Piperacillin-tazobactam inhibits the biosynthesis of cell wall mucopeptide and is effective during the stage of active multiplication. It has antipseudomonal activity.
Ampicillin and sulbactam (Unasyn)
Ampicillin and sulbactam is a drug combination of a beta-lactamase inhibitor with ampicillin. It interferes with bacterial cell wall synthesis during active replication, causing bactericidal activity against susceptible organisms. It is an alternative to amoxicillin if the patient is unable to take medications orally. It covers skin, enteric flora, and anaerobes and is not ideal for nosocomial pathogens.
Clindamycin (Cleocin)
Clindamycin is primarily used for its activity against anaerobes. It has some activity against Streptococcus species and methicillin-sensitive S aureus (MSSA).
Metronidazole (Flagyl, Metro)
Metronidazole is an imidazole ring-based antibiotic active against various anaerobic bacteria and protozoa. It is usually combined with other antimicrobial agents, except when used for Clostridium difficile enterocolitis, in which monotherapy is appropriate.
Cefepime (Maxipime)
Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin. It has gram-negative coverage comparable to ceftazidime but has better gram-positive coverage (comparable to ceftriaxone). Cefepime is active against Pseudomonas species. It has increased effectiveness against extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing organisms. Its poor capacity to cross blood-brain barrier precludes its use for treatment of meningitis.
Levofloxacin (Levaquin)
Levofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone with excellent gram-positive and gram-negative coverage. It is an excellent agent for pneumonia and has excellent abdominal coverage as well. High urine concentration necessitates reduced dosing in urinary tract infection.
Vancomycin
Vancomycin provides gram-positive coverage and good hospital-acquired MRSA coverage. It is now used more frequently because of the high incidence of MRSA. Vancomycin should be given to all septic patients with indwelling catheters or devices. It is advisable for skin and soft-tissue infections.
Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim DS, Septra DS)
The broad spectrum and action of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) against organisms found in patients with cystic fibrosis and the convenience of oral administration make this combination useful for treatment of milder infections in an outpatient setting.
Aztreonam (Azactam)
Aztreonam is a monobactam, not a beta-lactam, antibiotic that inhibits cell wall synthesis during bacterial growth. It is active against gram-negative bacilli but has very limited gram-positive activity and is not useful for anaerobes. Aztreonam lacks cross-sensitivity with beta-lactam antibiotics. It may be used in patients who are allergic to penicillins or cephalosporins.
The duration of therapy depends on the severity of infection and is continued for at least 48 hours after the patient becomes asymptomatic or evidence of bacterial eradication has been obtained. Doses that are smaller than indicated should not be used.
Transient or persistent renal insufficiency may prolong serum levels. After the initial loading dose of 1 or 2 g, reduce the dose by one half for an estimated CrCl of 10-30 mL/min/1.73 m2. When only the serum creatinine concentration is available, the following formula (based on sex, weight, and age) can approximate CrCl (serum creatinine should represent a steady state of renal function):
• Males: CrCl = [(weight in kg)(140 - age)] divided by (72 X serum creatinine in mg/dL)
• Females: 0.85 X above value
In patients with severe renal failure (CrCl < 10 mL/min/1.73 m2), those supported by hemodialysis, a usual dose of 500 mg, 1 g, or 2 g is given initially.
The maintenance dose is one fourth of the usual initial dose given at the usual fixed interval of 6, 8, or 12 hours. For serious or life-threatening infections, supplement maintenance doses with one eighth of the initial dose after each hemodialysis session.
Elderly persons may have diminished renal function. Renal status is a major determinant of dosage in these patients. Serum creatinine may not be an accurate determinant of renal status. Therefore, as with all antibiotics eliminated by the kidneys, obtain estimates of CrCl and make appropriate dosage modifications. Insufficient data are available regarding intramuscular (IM) administration to pediatric patients or dosing in pediatric patients with renal impairment. Aztreonam is administered intravenously only to pediatric patients with normal renal function.
Linezolid (Zyvox)
Linezolid is used as an alternative drug in patients allergic to vancomycin and for treatment of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. It is also effective against MRSA and penicillin-susceptible S pneumoniae infections.
This agent is an oxazolidinone antibiotic that prevents formation of the functional 70S initiation complex, which is essential for the bacterial translation process. Linezolid is bacteriostatic against enterococci and staphylococci and bactericidal against most strains of streptococci.
Ceftriaxone (Rocephin)
Ceftriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin with broad-spectrum, gram-negative activity. It has lower efficacy against gram-positive organisms and higher efficacy against resistant organisms. Ceftriaxone is used for increasing prevalence of penicillinase-producing microorganisms. It inhibits bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to 1 or more penicillin-binding proteins. Cell wall autolytic enzymes lyse bacteria, while cell wall assembly is arrested.
Daptomycin (Cubicin)
Daptomycin causes membrane depolarization by binding to components of the cell membrane of susceptible organisms. It inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis intracellularly. It is a bactericidal antibiotic.
Nafcillin (Nallpen)
Nafcillin is a broad-spectrum penicillin. It is used for methicillin-sensitive S aureus and is the initial therapy for suspected penicillin G–resistant streptococcal or staphylococcal infections. In severe infections, start with parenteral therapy and change to oral therapy as the condition warrants. Because of thrombophlebitis, particularly in elderly persons, administer parenterally for only 1-2 days; change to oral therapy as indicated clinically.
Rifampin (Rifadin)
Rifampin is for use in combination with at least 1 other antituberculosis drug. It inhibits RNA synthesis in bacteria by binding to the beta subunit of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase, which, in turn, blocks RNA transcription. Cross-resistance may occur.
Daptomycin (Cubicin)
This is the first of a new antibiotic class called cyclic lipopeptides. It binds to bacterial membranes and causes rapid membrane potential depolarization, thereby inhibiting protein, DNA, and RNA synthesis, and ultimately causing cell death. It is indicated for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by S aureus (including methicillin-resistant strains), S pyogenes, S agalactiae, S dysgalactiae, and E faecalis (vancomycin-susceptible strains only).
Tigecycline (Tygacil)
Tigecycline is a glycylcycline antibiotic that is structurally similar to tetracycline antibiotics. It inhibits bacterial protein translation by binding to the 30S ribosomal subunit, and it blocks the entry of amino-acyl tRNA molecules in ribosome A site. It is indicated for complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by E coli, E faecalis (vancomycin-susceptible isolates only), S aureus (methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates), S agalactiae, S anginosus group (includes S anginosus, S intermedius, and S constellatus), S pyogenes and B fragilis.
-
A right lower quadrant abdominal wall abscess and enteric fistula are observed and confirmed by the presence of enteral contrast in the abdominal wall.
Tables
- Table 1. Infectious and Noninfectious Causes of Fever [14]
- Table 2. Clinical Conditions Associated With Sepsis
- Table 3. Noninfectious Conditions Mimicking Clinical and Hemodynamic Parameters of Sepsis
- Table 4. Characteristics of Pseudosepsis and Sepsis
- Table 1. Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations [1]
System |
Infectious Causes |
Noninfectious Causes |
|---|---|---|
Central nervous |
Meningitis, encephalitis |
Posterior fossa syndrome, central fever, seizures, cerebral infraction, hemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident |
Cardiovascular |
Central line, infected pacemaker, endocarditis, sternal osteomyelitis, viral pericarditis, myocardial/perivalvular abscess |
Myocardial infarction, balloon pump syndrome, Dressler syndrome |
Pulmonary |
Ventilator-associated pneumonia, mediastinitis, tracheobronchitis, empyema |
Pulmonary emboli, ARDS, atelectasis (without pneumonia), cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, bronchogenic carcinoma without postobstructive pneumonia, systemic lupus erythematosus, pneumonitis, vasculitis |
Gastrointestinal |
Intra-abdominal abscess, cholangitis, cholecystitis, viral hepatitis, peritonitis, diarrhea (Clostridium difficile) |
Pancreatitis, acalculous cholecystitis, ischemia of the bowel/colon, bleeding, cirrhosis, irritable bowel syndrome |
Urinary tract |
Catheter-associated bacteremia, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, cystitis |
Allergic interstitial nephritis |
Skin/soft tissue |
Decubitus ulcers, cellulitis, wound infection |
Vascular ulcers |
Bone/joint |
Chronic osteomyelitis, septic arthritis |
Acute gout |
Other |
Transient bacteremia, sinusitis |
Adrenal insufficiency, phlebitis/thrombophlebitis, neoplastic fever, alcohol/drug withdrawal, delirium tremens, drug fever, fat emboli, deep venous thrombosis, postoperative fever (48 h), fever after transfusion |
| System | Associated With Sepsis |
Not Typically Associated With Sepsis |
| GI tract | Liver Gallbladder Colon Abscess Intestinal obstruction Instrumentation |
Esophagitis Gastritis Pancreatitis (may have multiorgan dysfunction but not infectious in origin) Small bowel disorders GI bleeding |
| GU tract | Pyelonephritis Intra- or perinephric abscess Renal calculi Urinary tract obstruction Acute prostatitis/abscess Renal insufficiency Instrumentation in patients with bacteriuria |
Urethritis Cystitis Cervicitis Vaginitis Catheter-associated bacteriuria (in otherwise healthy hosts without genitourinary tract disease) |
| Pelvis | Peritonitis Abscess |
|
| Upper respiratory tract | Deep neck space infection Abscess |
Pharyngitis Sinusitis Bronchitis Otitis |
| Lower respiratory tract | Community-acquired pneumonia (with asplenia) Empyema Lung abscess |
Community-acquired pneumonia (in otherwise healthy host)
|
| Intravascular | IV line sepsis Infected prosthetic device Acute bacterial endocarditis |
|
| Cardiovascular | Acute bacterial endocarditis Myocardial/perivalvular ring abscess |
Subacute bacterial endocarditis
|
| CNS | Bacterial meningitis |
Aseptic meningitis |
Skin/soft-tissue
|
Necrotizing fasciitis
|
Osteomyelitis Uncomplicated wound infections |
CNS = central nervous system; GI = gastrointestinal; GU = genitourinary; IV = intravenous. Adapted from: Cunha BA, Shea KW. Fever in the intensive care unit. Infect Dis Clin North Am. Mar 1996;10(1):185-209. [41] |
||
Clinical Presentations Mimicking Sepsis |
Hemodynamic Parameters Mimicking Sepsis |
Myocardial infarction |
Spinal cord injury |
Pancreatitis |
Adrenal insufficiency |
Diabetic ketoacidosis |
Acute pancreatitis |
Systemic lupus erythematosus flare with abdominal crisis |
Hemorrhage |
Ventricular pseudoaneurysm |
Pulmonary embolism |
Massive aspiration/atelectasis |
Anaphylaxis |
Systemic vasculitis |
|
Hypovolemia (eg, due to diuretics, dehydration) |
|
Parameters |
Pseudosepsis |
Sepsis |
Microbiologic |
No definite source PLUS ≥1 abnormalities Negative blood cultures excluding contaminants |
Proper identification/process/source PLUS ≥1 microbiologic abnormalities Positive buffy coat smear result OR several positive blood culture results with a pathogenic organism |
Hemodynamic |
⇓ PVR ⇑ CO |
⇓ PVR ⇑ CO Left ventricular dilatation |
Laboratory |
⇑ WBC count (with left shift) Normal platelet count ⇑ FSP ⇑ Lactate ⇑ D-dimers ⇑ PT/PTT ⇓ Albumin ⇓ Fibrinogen ⇓ Globulins |
⇑ WBC count (with left shift) ⇓ Platelets ⇑ FSP ⇑ Lactate ⇑ D-dimers ⇑ PT/PTT ⇓ Albumin |
Clinical |
≤102°F ± Tachycardia ± Respiratory alkalosis ± Hypotension |
≥102°F OR Hypothermia ± Mental status changes ± Hypotension |
CO = cardiac output; FSP = fibrin split products; GI = gastrointestinal; GU = genitourinary; PT/PTT = prothrombin time/partial thromboplastin time; PVR = peripheral vascular resistance; WBC = white blood cell. |
||
| Recommendations 2021 | Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence | Changes From 2016 Recommendations |
|---|---|---|
| 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence (for screening) | Changed from Best practice statement |
| “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” | ||
| Strong; very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) | ||
| 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | NEW |
| 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| INITIAL RESUSCITATION | ||
| 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. | Best practice statement | |
| 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. | Weak; low quality of evidence | DOWNGRADE from Strong; low quality of evidence |
| “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” | ||
| 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination or static parameters alone. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW |
| MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE | ||
| 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE | ||
| 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require ICU admission, we suggest admitting the patients to the ICU within 6 hr. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| INFECTION | ||
| 11. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock but unconfirmed infection, we recommend continuously re-evaluating and searching for alternative diagnoses and discontinuing empiric antimicrobials if an alternative cause of illness is demonstrated or strongly suspected. | Best practice statement | |
| 12. For adults with possible septic shock or a high likelihood for sepsis, we recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hr of recognition. | Strong; low quality of evidence (Septic shock) | CHANGED from previous: “We recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock” |
| Strong; very low quality of evidence (Sepsis without shock) | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 13. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infectious versus noninfectious causes of acute illness. | Best practice statement | |
| 14. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we suggest a time-limited course of rapid investigation and if concern for infection persists, the administration of antimicrobials within 3 hr from the time when sepsis was first recognized. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock” | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 15. For adults with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, we suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock“ | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 16. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using procalcitonin plus clinical evaluation to decide when to start antimicrobials, as compared with clinical evaluation alone. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 17. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk for MRSA, we recommend using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage over using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. | Best practice statement | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage.” | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 18. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk for MRSA, we suggest against using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage, as compared with using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage.” | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 19. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and high risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest using two antimicrobials with gram-negative coverage for empiric treatment over one gram-negative agent. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 20. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest against using two gram-negative agents for empiric treatment, as compared to one gram-negative agent. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 21. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using double gram-negative coverage once the causative pathogen and the susceptibilities are known. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 22. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk for fungal infection, we suggest using empiric antifungal therapy over no antifungal therapy. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage.” | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 23. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of fungal infection, we suggest against empiric use of antifungal therapy | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: |
| “We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage.“ | ||
| Strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence | ||
| 24. We make no recommendation on the use of antiviral agents. | No recommendation | |
| 25. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using prolonged infusion of beta-lactams for maintenance (after an initial bolus) over conventional bolus infusion. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 26. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend optimising dosing strategies of antimicrobials based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and specific drug properties. | Best practice statement | |
| 27. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend rapidly identifying or excluding a specific anatomical diagnosis of infection that requires emergent source control and implementing any required source control intervention as soon as medically and logistically practical. | Best practice statement | |
| 28. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established. | Best practice statement | |
| 29. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobials over using fixed durations of therapy without daily reassessment for de-escalation. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 30. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control, we suggest using shorter over longer duration of antimicrobial therapy. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 31. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control where optimal duration of therapy is unclear, we suggest using procalcitonin AND clinical evaluation to decide when to discontinue antimicrobials over clinical evaluation alone. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT | ||
| 32. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 33. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloids instead of normal saline for resuscitation. | Weak; low quality of evidence | CHANGED from weak recommendation; low quality of evidence. |
| “We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock” | ||
| 34. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using albumin in patients who received large volumes of crystalloids. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 35. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using starches for resuscitation. | Strong; high-quality evidence | |
| 36. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using gelatin for resuscitation. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | UPGRADE from weak recommendation; low quality of evidence |
| “We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock.” | ||
| 37. For adults with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine as the first-line agent over other vasopressors. | Strong | |
| Dopamine. High-quality evidence | ||
| Vasopressin. Moderate-quality evidence | ||
| Epinephrine. Low quality of evidence | ||
| Selepressin. Low quality of evidence | ||
| Angiotensin II. Very low-quality evidence | ||
| 38. For adults with septic shock on norepinephrine with inadequate mean arterial pressure levels, we suggest adding vasopressin instead of escalating the dose of norepinephrine. | Weak; moderate quality evidence | |
| 39. For adults with septic shock and inadequate mean arterial pressure levels despite norepinephrine and vasopressin, we suggest adding epinephrine. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 40. For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using terlipressin. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 41. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest either adding dobutamine to norepinephrine or using epinephrine alone. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 42. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest against using levosimendan. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW |
| 43. For adults with septic shock, we suggest invasive monitoring of arterial blood pressure over noninvasive monitoring, as soon as practical and if resources are available. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 44. For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | NEW |
| 45. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in the first 24 hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who still have signs of hypoperfusion and volume depletion after the initial resuscitation. | No recommendation | NEW |
| “We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock” | ||
| Weak recommendation; low quality of evidence | ||
| “We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock.” | ||
| Weak recommendation; low quality of evidence | ||
| VENTILATION | ||
| 46.There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of conservative oxygen targets in adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. | No recommendation | |
| 47. For adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest the use of high flow nasal oxygen over noninvasive ventilation. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW |
| 48. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of noninvasive ventilation in comparison to invasive ventilation for adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. | No recommendation | |
| 49. For adults with sepsis-induced ARDS, we recommend using a low tidal volume ventilation strategy (6 mL/kg), over a high tidal volume strategy (> 10 mL/kg). | Strong; high-quality evidence | |
| 50. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30 cm H2O, over higher plateau pressures. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 51. For adults with moderate to severe sepsis-induced ARDS, we suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 52. For adults with sepsis-induced respiratory failure (without ARDS), we suggest using low tidal volume as compared with high tidal volume ventilation. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 53. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 54. When using recruitment maneuvers, we recommend against using incremental PEEP titration/strategy. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 55. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we recommend using prone ventilation for greater than 12 hr daily. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 56. For adults with sepsis induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using intermittent NMBA boluses, over NMBA continuous infusion. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 57. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we suggest using Veno-venous (VV) ECMO when conventional mechanical ventilation fails in experienced centers with the infrastructure in place to support its use. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW |
| ADDITIONAL THERAPIES | ||
| 58. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IV corticosteroids. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | UPGRADE from Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence |
| “We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (see goals for Initial Resuscitation). If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day.” | ||
| 59. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW from previous: “We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques” |
| 60. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of other blood purification techniques. | No recommendation | |
| 61. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a restrictive (over liberal) transfusion strategy. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 62. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV immunoglobulins. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 63. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, we suggest using stress ulcer prophylaxis. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 64. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis unless a contraindication to such therapy exists. | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 65. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 66. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using mechanical VTE prophylaxis, in addition to pharmacological prophylaxis, over pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 67. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, we suggest using either continuous or intermittent renal replacement therapy. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 68. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, with no definitive indications for renal replacement therapy, we suggest against using renal replacement therapy. | Weak; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 69. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend initiating insulin therapy at a glucose level of ≥ 180mg/dL (10 mmol/L). | Strong; moderate-quality evidence | |
| 70. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. | Weak; low quality of evidence | NEW |
| 71. For adults with septic shock and hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia, we suggest against using sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 72. For adults with septic shock and severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.2) and acute kidney injury (AKIN score 2 or 3), we suggest using sodium bicarbonate therapy | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 73. For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally, we suggest early (within 72 hr) initiation of enteral nutrition. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| LONG-TERM OUTCOMES AND GOALS OF CARE | ||
| 74. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend discussing goals of care and prognosis with patients and families over no such discussion. | Best practice statement | |
| 75. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest addressing goals of care early (within 72 hr) over late (72 hr or later). | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 76. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on any specific standardized criterion to trigger goals of care discussion. | No recommendation | |
| 77. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the principles of palliative care (which may include palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement) be integrated into the treatment plan, when appropriate, to address patient and family symptoms and suffering. | Best practice statement | |
| 78. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against routine formal palliative care consultation for all patients over palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement. | Weak; low quality of evidence | |
| 79. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest referral to peer support groups over no such referral. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 80. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a handoff process of critically important information at transitions of care over no such handoff process. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 81. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of any specific structured handoff tool over usual handoff processes. | No recommendation | |
| 82. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend screening for economic and social support (including housing, nutritional, financial, and spiritual support), and make referrals where available to meet these needs. | Best practice statement | |
| 83. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest offering written and verbal sepsis education (diagnosis, treatment, and post-ICU/post-sepsis syndrome) prior to hospital discharge and in the follow-up setting. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 84. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend the clinical team provide the opportunity to participate in shared decision making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning to ensure discharge plans are acceptable and feasible. | Best practice statement | |
| 85. For adults with sepsis and septic shock and their families, we suggest using a critical care transition program, compared with usual care, upon transfer to the floor. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 86. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge. | Best practice statement | |
| 87. For adult survivors of sepsis and septic shock and their families, we recommend including information about the ICU stay, sepsis and related diagnoses, treatments, and common impairments after sepsis in the written and verbal hospital discharge summary. | Best practice statement | |
| 88. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who developed new impairments, we recommend hospital discharge plans include follow-up with clinicians able to support and manage new and long-term sequelae. | Best practice statement | |
| 89. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on early post-hospital discharge follow-up compared with routine post-hospital discharge follow-up. | No recommendation | |
| 90. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against early cognitive therapy. | No recommendation | |
| 91. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. | Best practice statement | |
| 92. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest referral to a post-critical illness follow-up program if available. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
| 93. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48hr or an ICU stay of > 72 hr, we suggest referral to a post-hospital rehabilitation program. | Weak; very low quality of evidence | |
