Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, and Septic Shock

Published on 07/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Critical Care Medicine

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1309 times

Chapter 32 Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, and Septic Shock

2 Explain the nomenclature for disorders related to sepsis

In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine determined the nomenclature for disorders related to sepsis. The following terms describe the progression of signs and symptoms regarding this somewhat confusing terminology:

In 2001, the International Sepsis Definitions Conference convened to once again address the difficulties in defining sepsis. During this meeting, conference members expressed the need for a better, more sophisticated way to stage the severity of sepsis. At this time PIRO was introduced. Over the past several years, several studies have been published correlating a total PIRO score with mortality. However, the studies are not identical, and they still need to be corroborated by other investigators. In brief, PIRO represents the following:

5 Discuss current understanding of the pathogenesis of sepsis and septic shock

Sepsis syndrome begins with the invasion and growth of microorganisms (gram positive, gram negative, fungal, or viral) in a normally sterile tissue space. The endothelium is damaged by infection, trauma, or other insult, and activation of the host immune response begins. Tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-8 are associated with the activation of an inflammatory cascade and chemotaxis of leukocytes, monocytes, and macrophages. Antiinflammatory substances such as IL-4, IL-10, prostaglandins, and other components of the immune system work to maintain homeostasis in the face of an infectious insult. Sepsis syndrome develops when the balance between the proinflammatory and antiinflammatory substances is lost.

The coagulation pathway plays a critical role in sepsis. The complement system, vasoregulatory system (nitric oxide, bradykinin, prostaglandins), the coagulation cascade (tissue factor, protein C, thrombin, antithrombin III), and fibrinolysis (fibrin, plasmin, and plasminogen-activating factor) play roles as well. The result is the development of a vicious circle that promotes, both locally and systemically, further inflammation, release of oxygen free radicals, and deposition of microvascular thrombi, resulting in a cycle of ischemia, reperfusion injury, and tissue hypoxia. Global tissue hypoxia independently contributes to endothelial activation and further disruption of the homeostatic balance among coagulation, vascular permeability, and vascular tone. These are key mechanisms leading to microcirculatory failure, refractory tissue hypoxia, and organ dysfunction.

It is becoming clear that the processes of coagulation and inflammation are tightly linked. Recent studies have shown that patients with severe sepsis have depleted levels of protein C, protein S, and antithrombin III.

8 What clinical signs and symptoms should raise suspicion of SIRS, sepsis, and underlying organ dysfunction?

9 What are the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines? What are some of the high points?

This document was originally published in 2004 and was codified by 11 international critical care organizations. It was updated in 2008. It provides a state-of-the-art evidence-based approach to the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Some of the highlights of this important document are in Box 32-1.

Box 32-1 Highlights of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines

Initial Resuscitation

The initial resuscitation phase of a patient with severe sepsis or in septic shock should be completed within 6 hours of identification, usually signified by an elevated serum lactate level. Current recommendations are to rapidly place a catheter with central venous access, although this is not essential before fluid administration. Regardless of type of venous access, aggressive fluid therapy with a challenge of 1 L (10-20 mL/kg) of crystalloid over a 30-minute period should be performed. The target central venous pressure (CVP) is between 8 and 12 mm Hg in a patient breathing spontaneously; for a patient receiving mechanical ventilation a higher CVP goal is likely needed. The goal blood pressure is a MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg. If after adequate volume resuscitation has occurred (typically after 3-5 L of crystalloid) and the patient continues to have hypotension, vasopressors should be started to keep the MAP at goal. Vasopressors may also be needed during the fluid resuscitation. It is currently recommended that norepinephrine or dopamine be used as first-line agents when vasopressors are required to maintain an adequate MAP. Vasopressin and/or epinephrine infusions can be added if the norepinephrine or dopamine is ineffective. Inotropic agents should be used only if clear evidence of myocardial dysfunction exists (elevated filling pressures and low cardiac output). These agents should be delivered through a central venous catheter as soon as possible. Immediately after the start of the fluid challenge, samples for blood cultures should be drawn, if not already done. Appropriate intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy should be administered within the first hour of the initial resuscitation phase. If possible, a source should be identified and measures taken to control the infection (i.e., drainage of an abscess). Clearance of lactate (and resolution of metabolic acidosis) from the blood during resuscitation suggests that the resuscitation has been effective.

Adjunctive Therapy Within the First 24 Hours

10 What is an evidence-based approach to the use of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)?

Since its initial description in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1970, the PAC has been an important tool for the critical care clinician. Its major roles have been to

Recent data from large randomized trials have been unable to document a particular subgroup of patients in which the use of the PAC has been associated with improved outcomes. Multiple complex reasons are behind these results, which are still being debated in the literature. Nevertheless, it can be stated with some certainty that the placement of a PAC is no longer a requirement for the successful diagnosis and management of a patient with sepsis.