Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1134_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
19 Мб
Скачать
21 Antibiotic Strategy and Stewardship
253
associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter­associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), and Clostridium diffi cile colitis.

General Control Measures

Handwashing and Barrier Precautions

Hand hygiene is one of the most important infection control practices that providers can utilize to prevent horizontal transmission or contamination between patients. Handwashing programs have been shown to decrease infec­tion rates in critical care settings and are cost effective [ 23 ]. The greatest barrier to practice is long-term provider compli­ance [ 24 ]. Studies have evaluated the currently available antiseptic solutions, both alcohol-based and chlorhexidine products, and while both solutions have been found to be more effective than soap and water alone, neither has been found to be more effective than the other [ 25 ]. Alcohol solu- tions cause less skin irritation and are more cost effective. Barrier precautions, gloves and gowning for patients that are known to have drug-resistant infections, have been found to be effective as decreasing infection rates [ 26 , 27 ].

Decolonization

The use of antibacterial solutions, such as 2 % chlorhexidine wipes, for daily washing has been an accepted practice in many ICUs. Recent well-designed studies have shown con­fl icting results regarding universal decolonization strategies in ICUs. One multicenter, cluster-randomized study demon­strated a reduction in patient acquisition of multidrug­resistant organisms and fewer hospital-acquired bloodstream infections with universal decolonization [ 28 ]. A subsequent single-institution, multiple-ICU randomized study found no reduction in overall health-care-associated infections and suggested the fi ndings did not support universal daily bath­ing [ 29 ]. Although data is confl icting, limited cost and few adverse effects make universal decolonization a reasonable infection control strategy, and it continues to be a component of expert panel recommendations [ 30 ].

Health-Care-Associated Infections

Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia/Ventilator­Associated Pneumonia
Critically ill patients are at high risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), with an incidence of up to 27 % of intu­bated patients [
31 ]. HAP is a clinical defi nition used to alert
providers to the fact that a hospitalized patient will have a different microbial exposure profi le that should be taken into consideration with treatment. A signifi cant majority of cases of HAP are associated with mechanical ventilation, and ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP) is that which occurs >48 h after intubation. Trauma patients have injury-specifi c risk factors for developing pneumonia including intubation in the fi eld, chest trauma, and potential history of aspiration [
32 ]. Critically ill patients who subsequently develop pneu-
monia have an attributable mortality of up to 50 % when matched to patients with similar illness severity [ 31 ]. Limiting the number of ventilator days by preventing the fi rst intubation, facilitating early extubation, and preventing re­intubation is the best way to prevent VAP. Standardized endotracheal protocols, including elevation of the head of bed and the use of closed suction systems, have been shown to decrease VAP rates in critical care units. Chlorhexidine oral rinses used in the perioperative period have been shown to reduce nosocomial infection rates, and systemic review has found that oral hygiene with chlorhexidine signifi cantly reduces respiratory infections in ventilated patients [ 33 , 34 ]. Antibiotic administration should not be delayed in the septic patient, though when possible, culture diagnosis through bronchoscopy or bronchial-alveolar lavage should be obtained to guide antibiotic selection and duration. For empiric treatment prior to culture results, a distinction is made between early onset (usually within 4–5 days of admis­sion) and late onset (>5 days of hospitalization). For those patients with early-onset HAP, the important bacteria to cover include Streptococcus pneumoniae , Haemophilus infl uenzae , Staphylococcus aureus , and Gram-negative enteric organisms in intubated patients. Patients with late­onset HAP, Pseudomonas , Acinetobacter , and drug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , should have coverage. Local antibiograms are impor­tant to monitor, as specifi c resistance patterns may be unique to individual institutions or vary between units or even within a single unit of mixed patient types within individual facilities.

Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection

Patients admitted to the ICU are at increased risk for blood­stream infections (BSIs) due to the frequent use of central and peripheral intravascular catheters, either for monitoring or therapeutic purposes. Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are primary BSIs, or those not associ­ated with an infection from a different source, in patients who have an indwelling central line within 48 h of the onset of infection. CLABSIs have an estimated incidence of 80,000 per year in ICU patients and increased morbidity in this population [
35 ]. Different insertion sites have been associ-
254
S.M. Kolnik and H.L. Evans
ated with varying risk of infection. Subclavian central lines have a lower incidence than those at the internal jugular site, and femoral lines have the highest infectious rates. The most common source of infection is a patient’s skin fl ora, and pre­ventative measures at the time of insertion include sterile prep with 2 % chlorhexidine solution and full barrier precau­tions with sterile technique followed with gloves, gown, mask, and hat. Standardized insertion techniques with ongo­ing provider education have been shown to decrease infec­tion rates [
36 ]. Diagnosis of CLABSI requires one of two
criteria to be met, (1) the patient has a recognized pathogen (not a common skin contaminant) cultured from one or more blood cultures and the organism cultured from the blood is not related to an infection at another site; (2) the patient has at least one of the following signs or symptoms: temperature over 38.0 °C (100.4 °F), chills, or hypotension. Signs and symptoms and positive laboratory results are not related to an infection at another site, and common skin contaminant is cultured from two or more blood cultures drawn on separate occasions [ 37 ]. For a local infection at the catheter site, treat- ment can consist of removal of the catheter without antibiotic administration. If the patient clinically improves and has normalization of their white count, then no further antibiotic would be warranted. If a patient appears clinically unwell or has signs or symptoms of sepsis, empiric treatment may be initiated prior to culture or sensitivity results. Antibiotics that cover for skin fl ora, including methicillin-resistant Staph aureus , should be used. Once culture and sensitivity data have returned, antibiotic treatment can be guided to the spe­cifi c organisms. Treatment should be started with the removal of the likely culprit catheter.
organisms isolated [
40 ]. The defi nition of a UTI is the pres-
ence of the signs and symptoms of UTI, including dysuria, urinary frequency, fl ank pain, or hematuria, without another identifi ed source of infection. For critically ill patients with urinary catheters in place, many of these symptoms will be masked, and a urinalysis and urine culture are the gold stan­dard tests for diagnosis. The presence of >10
5
colony­forming units on culture, or the presence of 10 3 –10 5 colony-forming units, and a positive urine culture are required for the diagnosis of UTI. A catheter-associated uri­nary tract infection (CAUTI) is diagnosed in a patient who meets the prior clinical criteria with a current indwelling catheter or has had a urinary catheter removed within the prior 48 h.
For patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria, antibiotic administration is not recommended, as treatment has not been shown to alter rates of eventual progression to symp­tomatic UTI or improve outcomes [ 41 ]. Empiric antibiotics should be initiated in patients with severe symptoms or signs of urosepsis. Selection of antibiotic should include consider­ation of the amount of urinary excretion to obtain adequate urinary concentration and the local resistance patterns. For patients with mild symptoms or when the diagnosis of UTI is questionable, antibiotic administration should be delayed until the return of culture results. The recommended duration of antibiotics from the Infectious Diseases Society of America is currently 7 days of treatment for patients who have a quick response to antibiotics and 10–14 days for patients with severe symptoms or a delayed response. A 5-day course can be considered in patients with mild disease, as some studies are demonstrating no difference with a short­ened duration of antibiotics.

CAUTI

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common health­care- associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU), accounting for up to 40 % of all health-care-associated infec­tions in critically ill patients [ 38 ]. The majority of UTIs are associated with urinary catheter use, and a signifi cant num­ber of patients in the ICU will have a urinary catheter for a portion of their hospitalization [ 39 ]. A UTI may progress to urosepsis and will typically fi rst begin with the development of simple bacteriuria that occurs from either seeding of the urinary bladder with initial catheter insertion or the develop­ment of biofi lms along the catheter surface. For patients with a short-term catheter in place, the common causative organ­isms are Escherichia coli , although Pseudomonas aerugi- nosa , Enterococcus , and yeast infections can also occur in critically ill patients. Patients who have had a catheter for greater than 30 days are likely to have a polymicrobial infec­tion due to Gram-negative organisms, Gram-positive organ­isms, and yeast, with most patients having three to fi ve
Diffi cile-Associated Disease
The 1970s saw the emergence of antibiotic-associated coli­tis, and it was at the end of the decade that Clostridium dif- fi cile was identifi ed as the causative agent. “ C. diff ” colitis is most frequently observed following treatment with clindamy­cin, cephalosporins, and fl uoroquinolones, and the risk of infection is increased with either the use of multiple antibiot­ics or longer duration including “extended prophylaxis” regi­mens [ 42 ]. A recent analysis found that annually in the United States, there are greater than 400,000 cases of C. diff colitis with an associated case mortality of 10 % and that the incidence continues to increase despite declines in the rates of other health-care-associated infections [ 43 ]. In the criti- cally ill patient, C. diff colitis should be suspected with the occurrence of watery diarrhea, and a stool sample should be sent for testing. Screening in asymptomatic patients is not recommended due to the possibility of identifying carriers in whom treatment is not recommended. Following diagnosis,
21 Antibiotic Strategy and Stewardship
255
treatment recommendations differ based on the severity of disease. Mild disease is the presence of diarrhea without other symptoms, while moderate disease includes the pres­ence of mild symptoms. A severe case of C. diff includes the prior criteria plus two of the following: hypoalbuminemia, WBC >15,000, and/or abdominal tenderness. And compli­cated C. diff includes the previous plus other signs/symptoms of ongoing infection. Treatment includes ensuring that any unnecessary antibiotics are discontinued, and for mild/mod­erate disease, the fi rst-line agent is PO metronidazole, while for severe disease, PO vancomycin (PR in the case of ileus) or IV metronidazole. Treatment duration for initial infec­tions is 10–14 days. For patients who fail initial treatment, all further episodes should be treated as complicated infections.
Surgical source control can be obtained for patients who fail to respond to medical therapy or for those who progress to hemodynamic compromise despite appropriate antibiotic treatment [
44 ]. Surgical source control regimens span the
“Pittsburgh” approach of laparoscopic loop ileostomy cou­pled with warm colonic lavage and a trans-ileocecal valve access catheter for antibiotic delivery in an antegrade fashion to the time-honored approach of total abdominal colectomy and end ileostomy. Procedure selection depends on the degree of critical illness with those who are unstable being appropriate only for the latter approach. With more mild dis­ease, colon preservation rates of up to 92 % may be achieved [ 45 ].

De-escalation

While antibiotic stewardship is most commonly linked with restricting certain antimicrobial, antiviral, or antifungal agents, an oft overlooked but essential feature is de- escalation [ 46 ]. This aspect of stewardship helps ensure that tailoring of empiric therapy occurs in a timely and appropriate fashion to help reduce the driving force for selection of resistant organ­isms. Furthermore, de-escalation therapy is also linked with IV to oral conversion approaches for agents whose bioavail­ability is therapeutically equivalent regardless of route of administration [ 47 ]. Failing to follow through with tailoring and then stopping therapy leads to unnecessary therapy, resistance promotion, fi nancial waste, and complication induction spanning C. diffi cile -associated disease and, more rarely, organ dysfunction (renal, bone marrow, etc.).
Conclusion
Based on the plethora of surveillance, consultation, and communication function, it is increasingly clear that insti­tutional antibiotic stewardship benefi ts from a team-based approach including infectious disease, a Pharm. D, often an advanced practice provider with a close relationship
with the intensivist. Regardless of which strategy is employed, stewardship sows benefi ts that improve out­comes, reduce resistant pathogen promotion, reduce infec­tion occurrence and transmission, and reduce overall cost.

References

1. MacDougall C, Polk RE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(4):638–56.
2. Luyt C-E, Chot NB, Trouillet J-L, Chastre J. Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit. Critical Care. 2014;18(5):2014:480.
3. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance. World Health Organization Publication; 2014. p. 1–256.
4. CDC AZ. US Department of Health and Human Services. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Atlanta: CDC (2013).
5. Davey P, Brown E, Charani E, Fenelon L, Gould IM, Holmes A, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD003543. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
6. Malani AN, Richards PG, Kapila S, Otto MH, Czerwinski J, Singal B. Clinical and economic outcomes from a community hospital’s antimicrobial stewardship program. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(2):145–8.
7. Carling P, Fung T, Killion A, Terrin N, Barza M. Favorable impact of a multidisciplinary antibiotic management program conducted during 7 years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(9):699–706.
8. Larson EL, Quiros D, Giblin T, Lin S. Relationship of antimicrobial control policies and hospital and infection control characteristics to antimicrobial resistance rates. Am J Crit Care. 2007;16(2):110–20.
9. Young EJ, Sewell CM, Koza MA. Antibiotic resistance patterns during aminoglycoside restriction. Am J Med Sci. 1985;290:223–7.
10. White AC, Atmar RL, Wilson J, Cate TR, Stager CE, Greenberg SB. Effects of requiring prior authorization for selected antimicro­bials: expenditures, susceptibilities, and clinical outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;25(2):230–9.
11. Aubert G, Carricajo A, Vautrin AC, Guyomarc’h S, Fonsale N, Page D, et al. Impact of restricting fl uoroquinolone prescription on bacterial resistance in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2005;59(2):83–9.
12. May AK, Melton SM, McGwin G, Cross JM, Moser SA. Reduction of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal infections by limitation of broad-spectrum cephalosporin use in a trauma and burn intensive care unit. Shock. 2000;14:259–64.
13. Burke JP. Antibiotic resistance – squeezing the balloon? JAMA. 1998;280(14):1270–1.
14. Allegranzi B, Luzzati R, Luzzani A, Girardini F, Antozzi L, Raiteri R, et al. Impact of antibiotic changes in empirical therapy on anti­microbial resistance in intensive care unit-acquired infections. J Hosp Infect. 2002;52(2):136–40.
15. Zillich AJ, Sutherland JM, Wilson SJ, Diekema DJ, Ernst EJ, Vaughn TE, et al. Antimicrobial use control measures to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance in US Hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(10):1088–95.
16. Gerding DN, Larson TA, Hughes RA, Weiler M, Shanholtzer C, Peterson LR. Aminoglycoside resistance and aminoglycoside usage: ten years of experience in one hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991;35(7):1284–90.
17. Kollef MH, Vlasnik J, Sharpless L, Pasque C, Murphy D, Fraser V. Scheduled change of antibiotic classes: a strategy to decrease the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:1040–8.
256
S.M. Kolnik and H.L. Evans
18. Gruson D, Hilbert G, Vargas F, Valentino R, Bebear C, Allery A, et al. Rotation and restricted use of antibiotics in a medical inten­sive care unit. Impact on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162(3 Pt 1):837–43.
19. Bergstrom CT, Lo M, Lipsitch M. Ecological theory suggests that antimicrobial cycling will not reduce antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:13285–90.
20. Raymond DP, Pelletier SJ, Crabtree TD, Gleason TG, Hamm LL, Pruett TL, et al. Impact of a rotating empiric antibiotic schedule on infectious mortality in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(6):1101–8.
21. Hughes MG, Evans HL, Chong TW, Smith RL, Raymond DP, Pelletier SJ, et al. Effect of an intensive care unit rotating empiric antibiotic schedule on the development of hospital-acquired infec­tions on the non–intensive care unit ward. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(1):53–60.
22. Piper GM, Kaplan LJ. Antibiotic heterogeneity optimizes antimi­crobial prescription and enables resistant pathogen control in the Intensive Care Unit. Surg Clin N Am. 2012;13(4):194–202.
23. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:S1–46.
24. Naikoba S, Hayward A. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing handwashing in healthcare workers – a systematic review. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47(3):173–80.
25. Girou E, Loyeau S, Legrand P, Oppein F, Brun-Buisson C. Effi cacy of handrubbing with alcohol based solution versus standard hand­washing with antiseptic soap: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2002;325(7360):362.
26. Safdar N, Marx J, Meyer NA, Maki DG. Effectiveness of preemp­tive barrier precautions in controlling nosocomial colonization and infection by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a burn unit. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(8):476–83.
27. Mangini E, Segal Maurer S, Burns J, Avicolli A, Urban C, Mariano N, et al. Impact of contact and droplet precautions on the incidence of hospitalacquired methicillinresistant staphylococcus aureus Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(11):1261–6.
28. Climo MW, Yokoe DS, Warren DK, Perl TM, Bolon M, Herwaldt LA, et al. Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(6):533–42.
29. Noto MJ, Domenico HJ, Byrne DW, Talbot T, Rice TW, Bernard GR, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing and health care–associated infec­tions. JAMA. 2015;313(4):369.
30. Calfee DP, Salgado CD, Milstone AM, Harris AD, Kuhar DT, Moody J, et al. Strategies to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission and infection in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014: 35;S108–S132.
31. American Thoracic Society; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital­acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumo­nia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(4):388–416.
32. Michelet P, Couret D, Brégeon F, Perrin G, D’Journo X-B, Pequignot V, et al. Early onset pneumonia in severe chest trauma: a
risk factor analysis. J Trauma: Inj Infect Crit Care. 2010;68(2):395–400.
33. DeRiso AJ, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, Justice JW, Peterson AC. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the inci­dence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and nonprophylac­tic systemic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest. 1996;109(6):1556–61.
34. Shi Z, Xie H, Wang P, Zhang Q, Wu Y, Chen E, Ng L, Worthington HV, Needleman I, Furness S. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 1;8.
35. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, Lipsett PA, Masur H, Mermel LA, Pearson ML, Raad II. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clinical infectious diseases. 2011;52(9):e162–93.
36. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, Sexton B, Hyzy R, Welsh R, Roth G, Bander J, Kepros J, Goeschel C. An intervention to decrease catheter-related blood­stream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–32.
37. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance defi ­nition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specifi c types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:309–32.
38. Chenoweth CE, Gould CV, Saint S. Diagnosis, management, and prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2014;28(1):105–19.
39. Shuman EK, Chenoweth CE. Recognition and prevention of healthcare- associated urinary tract infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:S373–9.
40. Nicolle LE. Urinary catheter-associated infections. Infectious dis­ease clinics of North America. 2012;26(1):13–27.
41. Ramanathan R, Duane TM. Urinary tract infections in surgical patients. Surg Clin North Am. 2014;94(6):1351–68.
42. Luciano JA, Zuckerbraun BS. Clostridium diffi cile infection: pre­vention, treatment, and surgical management. Surgical Clinics of North America. 2014;94(6):1335–49.
43. Lessa FC, Mu Y, Bamberg WM, Beldavs ZG, Dumyati GK, Dunn JR, et al. Burden of Clostridium diffi cile infection in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):825–34.
44. Cohen SH M.D., Gerding DN M.D., Johnson S M.D., Kelly CP M.D., Loo VG M.D., McDonald LC M.D. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium diffi cile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(5):431–55.
45. Neal M, Alverdy JC, Hall DE, et al. Diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage: an alternative to total abdominal colectomy or the treatment of severe, complicated Clostridium diffi cile associated disease. Ann Surg. 2011;254(3):423–9.
46. Garnacho-Montero J, Gutierrez-Pizarraya A, Escoresca-Ortega A, et al. De-escalation of empirical therapy is associated with lower mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic-shock. Int Care Med. 2014;40:32–40.
47. Jones M, Huttner B, Madaras-Kelly K, et al. Parenteral to oral conver­sion of fl uoroquinolones: low-hanging fruit for antimicrobial steward­ship programs? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;33(4):362–7.

Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, and Septic Shock

Andrew C. Gaugler and Nicholas Namias
2 2

Introduction

Sepsis, the deleterious infl ammatory response of the body to infection, has been a thorn in the side of the physician since the earliest days of Western civilization. The word “sepsis” comes from the Greek sipsi , which means “to make rotten.” The physicians and surgeons of antiquity noted the appear­ance of putrefi cation of wounds along with the presence of fever, which often accompanied injury and surgery. However, it has taken nearly two millennia for these phenomena, infec­tion and its infl ammatory host response, to reach a point of rudimentary understanding.
For hundreds of years, the purulence of an infected wound was thought to be essential for wound healing. The nine­teenth century brought groundbreaking progress with the introduction of surgical handwashing by Semmelweis, Pasteur’s discovery of microbial causes of infection, and Lister’s development of antiseptic techniques. In the pre­antibiotic era of the early twentieth century, the syndrome of sepsis was thought to wholly arise from bacteria in the bloodstream [
Following the Second World War, antibiotic use became widespread, and mortality from infection and sepsis began to dramatically decrease. However, it was not until David Ashbaugh fi rst described the acute respiratory distress syn­drome (ARDS) in adults in 1967 that the fi rst correlations between infection, trauma, and end-organ dysfunction due to systemic infl ammation were made [ 2 ].
Throughout the 1980s, it became more evident that many other organ systems were affected by the systemic infl amma-
A. C. Gaugler , DO (*) Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery , Jackson Memorial Hospital, Ryder Trauma Center , 1611 NW 12 Ave , Miami , FL 33136 , USA e-mail:
N. Namias , MD, MBA Department of Surgery , University of Miami Hospital/Jackson Memorial Hospital/Ryder Trauma Center , 1800 NW 10th Avenue, Ste. T215 , Miami , FL 33136 , USA
1 ].
andrew.gaugler@jhsmiami.org
tion caused by infection and injury. The work of physicians and researchers of the last two centuries has brought us to our modern defi nition of sepsis: the infl ammatory host response to infection [
3 ].

Epidemiology

Sepsis accounts for over 20 % of all ICU admissions nation­wide, is the most common cause of mortality in the noncar­diac intensive care unit, and is the tenth leading cause of all deaths in the United States [ 4 , 5 ]. Infection and multi-organ failure account for the majority of late death following both blunt and penetrating trauma [ 6 , 7 ]. In a recent review of sepsis in the surgical patient, postoperative sepsis was ten times more common than perioperative myocardial infarc­tion and pulmonary thromboembolism [ 8 ].
In the general medical population, pneumonia, urinary tract, and intra-abdominal infections account for greater than 65 % of all cases of sepsis [ 4 ]. When the surgical ICU patient is separated out from the general medical popula­tion, infections within the peritoneal cavity are by far the most common cause of sepsis, with the majority requiring either operative or image-guided intervention for source control [ 8 ].

Risk Factors

The possibility of infectious complications leading to sepsis syndrome and subsequent organ dysfunction and shock is inherent in both major operations and severe injury. Several factors however seem to increase the likelihood that these complications will occur and are associated with poor out­comes. Any underlying organ system pathology seems to increase the incidence of septic complications in a stepwise fashion. However, even for otherwise healthy individuals, longer than expected times in the operating room, the need for emergency surgery, and signifi cant delays in operating
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 N.D. Martin, L.J. Kaplan (eds.), Principles of Adult Surgical Critical Care, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33341-0_22
257
258
A.C. Gaugler and N. Namias
for emergent pathology all contribute signifi cantly to the patient’s risk of sepsis [
811 ].

Sepsis Syndromes

Sepsis syndrome encompasses the wide spectrum of the injurious host response to infection. The presence of two or more signs of the systemic infl ammatory response syndrome (see Table 22.1 ) with an infectious cause defi nes sepsis [ 3 , 12 ]. Surgical sepsis can be further defi ned as sepsis within 14 days of a major surgical procedure (general anesthesia time greater than 1 h) or sepsis requiring surgical interven­tion for source control [ 8 ]. The development of hypotension, hypoperfusion, or evidence of end-organ dysfunction, as a result of the host response to infection, defi nes severe sepsis. Refractory hypotension after adequate resuscitation with intravenous fl uids is termed septic shock [ 3 , 12 ].

Quantifying Organ Dysfunction in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

The deleterious systemic infl ammatory response of the human body to an infectious insult can have detrimental effects on all organ systems. The evaluation and manage­ment of the septic patient is complicated by the wide array of clinical manifestations, sites and etiologies of infections, and patient comorbidities. Recent efforts have been aimed at development of statistically validated biomarkers and math­ematical models of severity scores that could aid in risk strat­ifi cation and prognostication.
Historically, one of the most widely used scores has been the APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) model, which was used to classify severity of disease within 24 h of ICU admission based on age and 12 discreet variables. Higher scores correspond to more severe disease and higher risk of death [ has been extensively used in research; however, its applica­bility to the bedside is limited. Recently, more focused scales
13 ]. The APACHE score
directed at the septic patient in particular have been devel­oped, chiefl y the Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ Failure (PIRO) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Currently, these scores are being validated for the prognostic staging of sepsis and objectively quantifying severity of organ dysfunction in the ICU (Table
22.2 ). However, recent studies have validated PIRO as
effective in risk-stratifying septic patients admitted from the emergency department [ 1416 ].

Biomarkers in Sepsis

In certain patient populations, especially critically ill poly­trauma patients and those undergoing major surgical proce­dures, sepsis can be especially diffi cult to diagnose due to the preexisting infl ammatory response due to their primary dis­ease process. Several biomarkers have been proposed as tools to aid the clinician in differentiating between sepsis and other causes for the SIRS response. Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin 10, interleukin 6, TNF-alpha, and numer­ous other markers have been investigated. At this time, no single biomarker has been identifi ed that can reliably predict sepsis. However, procalcitonin has been shown to be useful in the identifi cation of early posttraumatic sepsis [ 17 ].

Markers of Tissue Hypoperfusion

One of the chief contributing factors for the development of end-organ dysfunction and failure in severe sepsis and septic shock is tissue hypoperfusion. Hypotension alone is often insuffi cient to diagnose shock or regional tissue hypoperfu­sion. Based on data from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, blood lactate levels greater than 4 mmol/dL were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality both with and without hypotension [ 18 ]. Additionally, lactate clearance, the percent change in lactate level over time, has been shown to be an effective marker in predicting response to treatment and risk of death. Lactate clearance within the fi rst 6 h of
Table 22.1 Diagnostic criteria for sepsis syndromes
SIRS Sepsis Surgical sepsis Severe sepsis Septic shock MODS Two or more of the
following criteria:
T>38 °C or <36 °C HR>90/min RR>20/min or
PaCO2<32 WBC>12,000 or <4,000 or >10 % bands
SIRS with documented infection
Sepsis within 14 days of a major surgical procedure or sepsis requiring surgical procedure for source control
Sepsis with organ dysfunction hypotension or hypoperfusion
Sepsis with persistent hypotension despite adequate fl uid resuscitation
Failure of two or more organ systems requiring support
22 Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, and Septic Shock
Table 22.2 Sequential organ failure scoring criteria
Respiratory Nervous
PaO2 SOFA GCS SOFA <400 1 13–14 1 <300 2 10–12 2
a
3 6–9 3
<200
a
4 <6 4
<100
Cardiovascular Hepatic
Variable SOFA Total bilirubin SOFA MAP <70 1 1.2–1.9 1 Dob or Dop<5 2 2.0–5.9 2 Dop>5 or NE0.1 Dop>15 or NE>0.1 4 >12.0 4
Coagulation Renal
Platelets SOFA Cr SOFA <150 1 1.2–1.9 1 <100 2 2.0–3.4 2 <50 3 3.5–4.9 3 <20 4 >5.0 4
a
With mechanical ventilation
b
Dop dopamine, Dob dobutamine, NE norepinephrine dose in mcg/kg/min
b
3 6.0–11.9 3
259
admission from the emergency department is especially use­ful in determining response to treatment [ 19 ]. Other markers of tissue hypoperfusion, including invasive and noninvasive monitoring devices for regional oxygenation index directly at the tissue level, are currently under investigation for future use [ 20 ].

Treatment of Severe Sepsis, Septic Shock, and Organ Dysfunction

Immediate recognition, fl uid and vasopressor resuscitation, early broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, source control of surgical sepsis, and support of dysfunctional or failed organ systems are the foundations of care for the septic patient. There have been multiple road maps of protocol-driven care for sepsis and septic shock released in recent years. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline 2012 update contains an evidence-based approach for care of severe sepsis and septic shock that is outside the scope of this chapter, but which the individual physician should be familiar. The protocol- driven approach to sepsis is heavily infl uenced by the “early goal-directed therapy” (EGDT) approach articu­lated by Rivers in 2001 [ 4 , 21 ].

Early Goal-Directed Therapy

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is a concept of targeting therapy in the early hours of septic shock to reach certain physiologic end points for resuscitation. In his single-center
trial reported in 2001, Rivers randomized patients to a proto­col aimed at using fl uids, vasopressors, invasive hemody­namic monitoring, and transfusion to resuscitate to CVP of 8–12 mmHg, MAP>65 mmHg, superior vena cava oxygen saturation >70 %, and a urine output of greater than 0.5 ml/ kg/h and demonstrated a 16 % reduction in mortality when compared with usual care [
21 ]. The fi ndings of this study
caused a dramatic shift in the critical care management of septic shock and heavily drove many of the recommenda­tions found within the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. However, Rivers’ study was not without criti­cism. EGDT mandates invasive hemodynamic monitoring with oximetric central venous catheters or intermittent supe­rior vena cava blood gases and advocates for resuscitation to supraphysiologic end points. What is also unclear is which elements of EGDT were responsible for the dramatic improvement in outcomes.
Two recent studies have aimed at comparing EGDT and/ or protocol-based resuscitation with usual care at the discre­tion of the attending critical care physician in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The ProCESS study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial with 1,341 patients with septic shock, randomized to protocol-based care (that did not require invasive hemodynamic monitoring, inotro­pes, or transfusions), EGDT, and usual care. The study showed essentially no difference in mortality across all groups at 60 days, 90 days, and 1 year [ 22 ].
ARISE 2014 was a similar multicenter international ran­domized controlled trial that compared EGDT to usual care in over 1,600 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Like the ProCESS trial, the ARISE investigators were unable
260
A.C. Gaugler and N. Namias
to show any difference in early or late mortality between the two groups [
These two studies have shed new light on numerous aspects of the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. First, invasive hemodynamic monitoring for resusci­tation in the septic patient does not appear to improve out­comes. Second, transfusion of packed red blood cells should be used judiciously and only in the setting of symptomatic anemia. Most importantly, the individual judgment of the seasoned critical care physician cannot be replaced by a stan­dardized protocol. Though Rivers’ controversial concept of EGDT may not hold up in the modern care of the septic patient, what cannot be overlooked is the impact his land­mark study had on the recognition and early, aggressive treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.
23 ].

Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis

Intravenous fl uid resuscitation is the fi rst-line therapy for improving hypotension and end-organ dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock. During the resuscitative phase, ensuring adequate intravascular volume and end-organ per­fusion are a top priority. A minimum volume of 30 mL/kg challenge of intravenous crystalloid bolus should be used for initial resuscitation, and intravenous fl uid administration should continue as long as there is evidence of physiologic improvement in hemodynamic parameters [ 12 ]. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety and effi ­cacy of the various crystalloid and colloid fl uids for resusci­tating the septic patient. Crystalloids are the preferred fl uid in sepsis, as there has been no clear benefi t in administering colloid solutions over crystalloids and colloid use is associ­ated with increased cost. It has been proposed that large vol­umes of crystalloid administration are associated with an increased risk of ARDS. However, recent trials have shown resuscitation volumes in the fi rst 24 h of care have little effect on the incidence of ARDS [ to supplement crystalloid resuscitation in patients already receiving large volumes of crystalloids, but there has been no demonstrated survival benefi t. Hydroxyethyl starches should be avoided in severe sepsis and septic shock due to lack of benefi t and potentiation of acute kidney injury [
24 ]. Albumin can be safely used
12 , 25 ].

Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring

Fluid balance monitoring is a heavily debated topic in severe sepsis and septic shock. The use of pulmonary artery cathe­ters and central venous catheters for pressure monitoring is controversial due to lack of clear effi cacy and risk of harm. Newer-generation monitors based on arterial line pulse pres­sure variation can be useful for following trends during
resuscitation but should be interpreted with caution due to lack of widespread validation and lack of accuracy in spon­taneously breathing, lightly sedated patients and those with cardiac arrhythmias.

Antimicrobial Therapy

Following the establishment of adequate intravenous access and starting aggressive intravenous fl uid therapy, the next priority in resuscitation should be the administration of effective broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Antimicrobial therapy should be instituted as soon as clini­cally feasible after recognition of sepsis. Multiple agents should be directed at the most likely infectious cause of the patient’s individual presentation. In the surgical patient, since the majority of presentations are related to an intra­abdominal source, agents active against enteric bacteria and anaerobes should be added, and in appropriate patients, agents active against drug-resistant organisms and antifungal agents should be added. In the immunosuppressed surgical population, antiviral agents should also be considered. Antibiotic therapy should be de-escalated to culture-directed therapy, usually by the third day after presentation [ 12 ]. Duration of antibiotic therapy remains a topic of debate. For patients with intra-abdominal infections having undergone adequate source control, a recent trial comparing a fi xed 4-day regimen versus administering the regimen until 2 days after normalization of fever, leukocytosis, and ileus showed no benefi t to a prolonged regimen [ 26 ].

Source Control

Immediately following volume resuscitation and initiation of antimicrobial therapy, a focused search for an infectious source amenable to source control must be urgently sought. Drainage of an intra-abdominal, cutaneous, or perianal abscess, debridement of necrotic tissue, or even the removal of an infected device or line are all potentially lifesaving measures in the septic patient [ 12 ]. Source control can be obtained by either surgical or nonsurgical means. Often intra-abdominal abscesses, empyema, and other foci such as the biliary tract can be drained via percutaneous, image- guided techniques. Other causes, such as necrotizing fasciitis, hollow viscus perforation, and perianal infection, require urgent operation. While the need for defi nitive source control may seem intuitive in the surgical population, it is of utmost importance that the critical care physician search out any potential source of undrained infection and that the ade­quacy of source control be continuously reassessed.
In a recent study of patients with septic shock from GI
perforation, shorter times from hospital admission to the ini-
22 Sepsis, Severe Sepsis, and Septic Shock
261
tiation of surgery reduced mortality, provided they received adequate early hemodynamic resuscitation. For patients in that study who had a signifi cant delay from admission to sur­gical intervention greater than 6 h, there were no survivors to 60-day follow-up. Surgical intervention for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock with an amenable source should undergo emergency operation as soon as possible, even if ongoing resuscitative measures need to be continued in the operating room [
11 ].

Damage Control in Intra-abdominal Sepsis

Damage control surgery and resuscitation is a concept in trauma surgery aimed at staving off the lethal triad of acido­sis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy. It is a combined resusci­tative and surgical effort aimed at halting ongoing blood loss and controlling contamination with an abbreviated laparot­omy, while restoring adequate circulating volume and pro­viding continued physiologic support in the ICU. Defi nitive surgical management is then performed in a staged fashion after reversal of initial physiologic derangement [ 27 ].
After its introduction in 1993, the damage control approach was widely adopted by the trauma community and is widely used in patients undergoing laparotomy for septic shock. This type of rapid source control with delayed defi ni­tive operation has become a lifesaving tactic in selected patients [ 28 , 29 ]. In the setting of damage control laparot- omy for abdominal catastrophe, there is evidence in both human and animal models that intraperitoneal fl uid resusci­tation may decrease time to abdominal closure, increase fas­cial closure rates, and decrease postoperative infectious complications; however, larger studies are needed to confi rm these fi ndings [ 30 , 31 ].

Cardiovascular Support

Institution of vasopressor therapy is vital to sustain life in the septic patient who does not adequately respond to intravas­cular volume loading. Below a certain MAP threshold level, which depends on the physiologic state of the individual patient, autoregulation in the tissue bed can be lost, and organ perfusion becomes linearly dependent on pressure. In the initial resuscitative phase, volume administration must be the fi rst priority. Adding vasoactive agents prior to restoring circulating volume is associated with increased mortality [ 32 ]. An arterial cannula should be placed when feasible fol- lowing initiation of vasopressor therapy to guide accurate dose titration and monitor response. For most patients, a MAP of 65 mmHg will maintain tissue perfusion and is the goal pressure recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines [
12 ]. Trials of using higher MAP for all patients
have been completed and have failed to show any difference in outcomes [ should be individualized. A higher MAP may be required in patients with underlying atherosclerosis or preexisting hypertension. Likewise, younger patients with lower base­line blood pressures will tolerate lower MAP with sustained tissue perfusion. Blood pressures should not be a blind target and should be supplemented with other evidence of adequate end-organ perfusion such as mental status, skin perfusion, and urine output.
Norepinephrine remains the fi rst-line vasopressor of choice in septic shock. Improving blood pressure results mainly from its vasoconstrictive effects and has some effect on heart rate and stroke volume. Dopamine may be useful in patients with decreased systolic function; however, its use is associated with more tachycardia and arrhythmias than nor­epinephrine, and its routine use should be avoided. Epinephrine has been recommended by some groups to aug­ment or replace norepinephrine when a second agent is needed to maintain perfusion. Epinephrine may stimulate lactate production from skeletal muscle and decrease the utility of lactate clearance. Concerns for detrimental effects on splanchnic circulation are not unfounded, but there has been no evidence to date that shows an increased risk of death for using epinephrine over norepinephrine [ 12 , 34 , 35 ].
Vasopressin can be added to norepinephrine to aid in rais­ing MAP, but doses higher than 0.04 U/min are only recom­mended for salvage therapy. In early septic shock, vasopressin levels are elevated and decrease to normal in most patients after the fi rst 24 h. In the face of continued hypotension, vasopressin levels should be elevated, and this state is thought to represent a relative vasopressin defi ciency. The clinical signifi cance of relative vasopressin defi ciency remains unknown [ 12 ].
Inotropic support may be needed in patients with ade­quate intravascular volume/adequate left ventricular fi lling pressures and adequate MAP with evidence of low cardiac output. Although both norepinephrine and epinephrine have some inotropic effect, dobutamine is the drug of choice in septic patients with decreased cardiac output, once euvolemia has been achieved.
Approximately 30 % of septic patients will have a tran­sient elevation of cardiac enzymes during the course of sep­tic shock. A recent investigation into the role of vasopressors and cardiac ischemia showed no difference in outcomes between patients receiving norepinephrine or vasopressin. Interestingly, transient troponin elevation had no effect on mortality [ 36 ].
Another recent investigation has focused on the role of beta-adrenergic blockade in septic shock. Though beta­blockers have been used in cardiovascular disease to reduce myocardial demand due to increased heart rate, they can have serious deleterious effects. The beta-adrenergic stimu-
33 ]. However, the optimal MAP for the patient
262
A.C. Gaugler and N. Namias
lation and resultant tachycardia can also have deleterious effects in the septic patient, especially when compounded by tachycardia associated with vasopressors. There were no adverse events in the 77 patients with septic shock requiring norepinephrine to maintain a MAP>65 and treated with esmolol for HR>95. There was an additional trend toward decreased 28-day mortality as well [ needed before a generalized statement about the use of beta blockade in sepsis can be made.
37 ]. Further study is

Corticosteroids

Corticosteroids have been recommended as an adjunct to vasopressor-resistant septic shock. ACTH stimulation test­ing is no longer recommended prior to initiating glucocorti­coid therapy, in the septic patient [ on the fi ndings of the CORTICUS trial in 2008, which dem­onstrated no survival benefi t to hydrocortisone therapy and failed to predict steroid responsiveness based on ACTH stimulation [ are recommended (in divided doses) and should be tapered after vasopressors are no longer needed. Corticosteroids may reduce vasopressor dosages and duration; however, the mechanisms by which this occurs are still unknown. Defi nitive evidence to endorse or condemn steroids for septic shock is lacking, and large randomized controlled trials are needed to guide therapy in the future [ 12 , 39 , 40 ].
38 ]. Doses of 200 mg of hydrocortisone per day
12 ]. This change is based

Transfusions

The transfusion of blood products is a common adjunctive therapy in patients with septic shock. Clearly, patients with ongoing hemorrhage in the setting of septic shock usually require transfusion, but other patients are transfused for ane­mia without the presence of hemorrhage as well. In the past, patients were routinely transfused to a hematocrit of 30 %, with the belief that increased red cell mass would improve tissue oxygenation and decrease myocardial ischemia. In Rivers’ EGDT study, transfusions were used to target goal ScvO2, regardless of hematocrit. As early as 1999, the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) study showed no benefi t in transfusing the critically ill patient until hemoglobin fell below 7 g per deciliter [ 41 ]. These fi ndings were corroborated by the Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) study, which found that in patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock, there was no benefi t in transfusing above hemoglobin of 7 g per deciliter [ 42 ]. With the increased recognition of adverse events related to blood transfusion, such as ABO mismatch, increased risk for infection, transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), the
risk/benefi t ratio must be thoroughly assessed by the treating physician prior to initiating transfusion.

Coagulation Disorders in Septic Shock

Sepsis causes systemic infl ammation, endothelial injury, and microvascular thrombosis contributing to organ failure in animal and human models. However, evidence for a clinical hypercoagulable state in sepsis and septic shock is lacking. Recent prospective studies have shown that on admission to the ICU, most patients in septic shock present with a hypo­coagulable state. Failure of the coagulopathy to resolve has been associated with increased risk of mortality [ 43 ]. Routine chemical prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism has been shown to be safe and effective and should be used in the absence of an absolute contraindication. Use of heparin in patients with septic shock or demonstrated DIC due to infec­tion may also decrease mortality [ 44 ].

Activated Protein C

After promising results of a 6 % reduction in mortality for severe sepsis, activated protein C was approved for use in
2001. Its use was quickly advocated for in previous versions of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. In a recent, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of nearly 1,700 patients, there was no evidence for a signifi cant reduction in 28-day or 90-day mortality. The drug was sub­sequently removed from the market and its use is no longer recommended [ 12 , 45 ].

Acute Kidney Injury and Septic Shock

Defi ned as an abrupt decline in renal function over the course of hours to days, acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious, but potentially reversible, complication of septic shock. Over 50 % of all ICU admissions will be complicated by at least some degree of renal dysfunction. AKI clinically presents as a decrease in urine output, rise in serum creatinine, or buildup of nitrogen waste products. More accurately, acute kidney injury can be defi ned and categorized by the RIFLE criteria, set forth in 2002 by the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (see Table 22.3 ) [ 46 ].
Sepsis in the surgical patient presents a unique challenge to the surgical intensivist. Surgical procedures, trauma, gen­eral anesthesia, and emergent operations for source control all add to the underlying risk of AKI associated with sepsis and critical illness. AKI occurs in almost 70 % of all patients with surgical sepsis, and the risk approaches 90 % for patients with septic shock. Nearly all patients who develop AKI in