scholarly journals Infectious Diseases Team for the Early Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in the Emergency Department

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (8) ◽  
pp. 1253-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierluigi Viale ◽  
Sara Tedeschi ◽  
Luigia Scudeller ◽  
Luciano Attard ◽  
Lorenzo Badia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Early Management ◽  
Sepsis And Septic Shock

scholarly journals Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanu Rhee ◽  
Kathleen Chiotos ◽  
Sara E Cosgrove ◽  
Emily L Heil ◽  
Sameer S Kadri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Early Management ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Sepsis And Septic Shock

Abstract The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1’s potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1’s complex “time zero” definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA’s core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

scholarly journals Management of sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Gavelli ◽  
Luigi Mario Castello ◽  
Gian Carlo Avanzi
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Surviving Sepsis Campaign ◽  
Sepsis Management ◽  
Early Management ◽  
New Information ◽  
Sepsis And Septic Shock ◽  
Early Phases

AbstractEarly management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients’ prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.

Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock

2018 ◽  
pp. 104-108
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Oxygen Demand ◽  
Goal Directed Therapy ◽  
Early Goal Directed Therapy ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Sepsis And Septic Shock

This case focuses on detecting sepsis through early goal-directed therapies by asking the question: Does aggressive correction of hemodynamic disturbances in the early stages of sepsis improve outcomes? Early goal-directed therapies are aimed at restoring a balance between oxygen delivery and oxygen demand. Patients included in the study were adults presenting to the emergency room with severe sepsis or septic shock. Study results indicated that most patients with severe sepsis or septic shock should be managed with aggressive hemodynamic monitoring and support immediately on presentation in the emergency department (or, if this is not possible, in the intensive care unit) for 6 hours or until there is resolution of hemodynamic disturbances.

Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Review of the Literature and Emergency Department Management Guidelines

2006 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 54.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Bryant Nguyen ◽  
Emanuel P. Rivers ◽  
Fredrick M. Abrahamian ◽  
Gregory J. Moran ◽  
Edward Abraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Shock ◽  
Severe Sepsis ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Management Guidelines ◽  
Emergency Department Management ◽  
Sepsis And Septic Shock ◽  
Department Management
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document