Download PDF
Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2024; 45(04): 503-509
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1789185
Review Article

Management of Sepsis in the First 24 Hours: Bundles of Care and Individualized Approach

Irene Coloretti
1   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University Hospital of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
,
Martina Tosi
1   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University Hospital of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
,
Emanuela Biagioni
1   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University Hospital of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
,
Stefano Busani
1   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University Hospital of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
,
Massimo Girardis
1   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Department, University Hospital of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Early diagnosis and prompt management are essential to enhance the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. Over the past two decades, evidence-based guidelines have guided appropriate treatment and recommended the implementation of a bundle strategy to deliver fundamental treatments within the initial hours of care. Shortly after its introduction, the implementation of a bundle strategy has led to a substantial decrease in mortality rates across various health care settings. The primary advantage of these bundles is their universality, making them applicable to all patients with sepsis. However, this same quality also represents their primary disadvantage as it fails to account for the significant heterogeneity within the septic patient population. Recently, the individualization of treatments included in the bundle has been suggested as a potential strategy for further improving the prognosis of patients with sepsis. New strategies for the early identification of microorganisms and their resistance patterns, advanced knowledge of antibiotic kinetics in critically ill patients, more conservative fluid therapy in specific patient populations, and early use of alternative vasopressors to catecholamines, as well as tailored source control based on patient conditions and site of infection, are potential approaches to personalize initial care for specific subgroups of patients. These innovative methodologies have the potential to improve the management of septic shock. However, their implementation in clinical practice should be guided by solid evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that future research evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of these strategies.

Keywords

sepsis - antibiotic - bundles - source control - vasopressors - fluid


Publication History

Article published online:
29 August 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H. et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign Management Guidelines Committee. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32 (03) 858-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W. et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med 2021; 49 (11) e1063-e1143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 update. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44 (06) 925-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dellinger RP, Levy MM, 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. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39 (02) 165-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 van Zanten ARH, Brinkman S, Arbous MS, Abu-Hanna A, Levy MM, de Keizer NF. Netherlands Patient Safety Agency Sepsis Expert Group. Guideline bundles adherence and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2014; 42 (08) 1890-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Prasad PA, Shea ER, Shiboski S, Sullivan MC, Gonzales R, Shimabukuro D. Relationship between a sepsis intervention bundle and in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients: a retrospective analysis of real-world data. Anesth Analg 2017; 125 (02) 507-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Damiani E, Donati A, Serafini G. et al. Effect of performance improvement programs on compliance with sepsis bundles and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS ONE 2015; 10 (05) e0125827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC. et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (23) 2235-2244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Waele JJ, Girardis M, Martin-Loeches I. Source control in the management of sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48 (12) 1799-1802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J. et al; EPIC II Group of Investigators. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA 2009; 302 (21) 2323-2329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Azuhata T, Kinoshita K, Kawano D. et al. Time from admission to initiation of surgery for source control is a critical determinant of survival in patients with gastrointestinal perforation with associated septic shock. Crit Care 2014; 18 (03) R87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Karvellas CJ, Abraldes JG, Zepeda-Gomez S. et al; Cooperative Antimicrobial Therapy of Septic Shock (CATSS) Database Research Group. The impact of delayed biliary decompression and anti-microbial therapy in 260 patients with cholangitis-associated septic shock. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016; 44 (07) 755-766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wong CH, Chang HC, Pasupathy S, Khin LW, Tan JL, Low CO. Necrotizing fasciitis: clinical presentation, microbiology, and determinants of mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (08) 1454-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bloos F, Thomas-Rüddel D, Rüddel H. et al; MEDUSA Study Group. Impact of compliance with infection management guidelines on outcome in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational multi-center study. Crit Care 2014; 18 (02) R42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Martínez ML, Ferrer R, Torrents E. et al; Edusepsis Study Group. Impact of source control in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2017; 45 (01) 11-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 De Pascale G, Antonelli M, Deschepper M. et al; Abdominal Sepsis Study (AbSeS) group and the Trials Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48 (11) 1593-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Goh C, Knight JC. Enhanced understanding of the host-pathogen interaction in sepsis: new opportunities for omic approaches. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5 (03) 212-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vincent JL, Singer M, Einav S. et al. Equilibrating SSC guidelines with individualized care. Crit Care 2021; 25 (01) 397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Santacroce E, D'Angerio M, Ciobanu AL. et al. Advances and challenges in sepsis management: modern tools and future directions. Cells 2024; 13 (05) 439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lawrence KL, Kollef MH. Antimicrobial stewardship in the intensive care unit: advances and obstacles. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 179 (06) 434-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB. et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18 (03) 268-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cortegiani A, Antonelli M, Falcone M. et al. Rationale and clinical application of antimicrobial stewardship principles in the intensive care unit: a multidisciplinary statement. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 2023; 3 (01) 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schelenz S, Hagen F, Rhodes JL. et al. First hospital outbreak of the globally emerging Candida auris in a European hospital. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2016; 5: 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Buchan BW, Windham S, Balada-Llasat JM. et al. Practical comparison of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel to routine diagnostic methods and potential impact on antimicrobial stewardship in adult hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 2020; 58 (07) e00135-e20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 MacVane SH, Nolte FS. Benefits of adding a rapid PCR-based blood culture identification panel to an established antimicrobial stewardship program. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54 (10) 2455-2463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Conway Morris A, Bos LDJ, Nseir S. Molecular diagnostics in severe pneumonia: a new dawn or false promise?. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48 (06) 740-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pea F, Viale P. Bench-to-bedside review: Appropriate antibiotic therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock–does the dose matter?. Crit Care 2009; 13 (03) 214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Blot SI, Pea F, Lipman J. The effect of pathophysiology on pharmacokinetics in the critically ill patient–concepts appraised by the example of antimicrobial agents. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2014; 77: 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abdul-Aziz MH, Alffenaar JC, Bassetti M. et al; Infection Section of European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and Critically Ill Patient Study Groups of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), Infectious Diseases Group of International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT), Infections in the ICU and Sepsis Working Group of International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC). Antimicrobial therapeutic drug monitoring in critically ill adult patients: a Position Paper. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46 (06) 1127-1153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tigabu BM, Davari M, Kebriaeezadeh A, Mojtahedzadeh M. Fluid volume, fluid balance and patient outcome in severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review. J Crit Care 2018; 48: 153-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bradley MJ, Dubose JJ, Scalea TM. et al; AAST Open Abdomen Study Group. Independent predictors of enteric fistula and abdominal sepsis after damage control laparotomy: results from the prospective AAST Open Abdomen registry. JAMA Surg 2013; 148 (10) 947-954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, Walley KR, Russell JA. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 2011; 39 (02) 259-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Malbrain MLNG, Marik PE, 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 (05) 361-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lamontagne F, Meade MO, Hébert PC. et al; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.. Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42 (04) 542-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lamontagne F, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K. et al; 65 trial investigators. Effect of reduced exposure to vasopressors on 90-day mortality in older critically ill patients with vasodilatory hypotension: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 323 (10) 938-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J. et al; CLASSIC Trial Group. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2022; 386 (26) 2459-2470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shapiro NI, Douglas IS, Brower RG. et al; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Clinical Trials Network. Early restrictive or liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension. N Engl J Med 2023; 388 (06) 499-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Reynolds PM, Stefanos S, MacLaren R. Restrictive resuscitation in patients with sepsis and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Pharmacotherapy 2023; 43 (02) 104-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Maheshwari K, Nathanson BH, Munson SH. et al. The relationship between ICU hypotension and in-hospital mortality and morbidity in septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44 (06) 857-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Teboul JL, Duranteau J, Russell JA. Intensive care medicine in 2050: vasopressors in sepsis. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44 (07) 1130-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Asfar P, Meziani F, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J. et al; VASST Investigators. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (09) 877-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Stolk RF, van der Poll T, Angus DC, van der Hoeven JG, Pickkers P, Kox M. Potentially inadvertent immunomodulation: norepinephrine use in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194 (05) 550-558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Stolk RF, van der Pasch E, Naumann F. et al. Norepinephrine dysregulates the immune response and compromises host defense during sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202 (06) 830-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Thoppil J, Mehta P, Bartels B, Sharma D, Farrar JD. Impact of norepinephrine on immunity and oxidative metabolism in sepsis. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1271098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lesur O, Delile E, Asfar P, Radermacher P. Hemodynamic support in the early phase of septic shock: a review of challenges and unanswered questions. Ann Intensive Care 2018; 8 (01) 102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Jozwiak M. Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: which agents and when?. J Intensive Med 2022; 2 (04) 223-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Coloretti I, Genovese A, Teixeira JP. et al. Angiotensin ii therapy in refractory septic shock: which patient can benefit most? A narrative review. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 2024; 4 (01) 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Barabutis N, Marinova M, Solopov P. et al. Protective mechanism of the selective vasopressin V1A receptor agonist selepressin against endothelial barrier dysfunction. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2020; 375 (02) 286-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Russell JA, Gordon AC, Williams MD, Boyd JH, Walley KR, Kissoon N. Vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 42 (01) 59-77
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Nagendran M, Russell JA, Walley KR. et al. Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45 (06) 844-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS. et al; ATHOS-3 Investigators. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (05) 419-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Buck DL, Vester-Andersen M, Møller MH. Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Surgical delay is a critical determinant of survival in perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 2013; 100 (08) 1045-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Spoto S, Valeriani E, Caputo D. et al. The role of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of bacterial infection after major abdominal surgery: advantage from daily measurement. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (03) e9496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Domínguez-Comesaña E, Estevez-Fernández SM, López-Gómez V, Ballinas-Miranda J, Domínguez-Fernández R. Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as early markers of postoperative intra-abdominal infection in patients operated on colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017; 32 (12) 1771-1774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hassan J, Khan S, Zahra R. et al. Role of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as predictors of sepsis and in managing sepsis in postoperative patients: a systematic review. Cureus 2022; 14 (11) e31067
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Jerome E, McPhail MJ, Menon K. Diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and interleukin-6 for postoperative infection in major gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2022; 104 (08) 561-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Guan J, Lin Z, Lue H. Dynamic change of procalcitonin, rather than concentration itself, is predictive of survival in septic shock patients when beyond 10 ng/mL. Shock 2011; 36 (06) 570-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar