Download Up a River without a Paddle: Defining Sepsis in 2016, Revisiting

UP A RIVER WITHOUT A PADDLE:
DEFINING SEPSIS IN 2016, REVISITING
TREATMENT GOALS AND OTHER
CHALLENGING TOPICS IN SEPSIS
Kristina D. Holley, PharmD, BCPS
Critical Care Clinical Pharmacist
UW Medicine/Valley Medical Center
[email protected]
DISCLOSURE
I have no actual or potential conflicts of interests in
relation to this presentation
I will not discuss off label use and/or investigational
uses of medications or treatments in my
presentation
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the completion of this program, the participant
will be able to:
Restate the basic physiology surrounding sepsis and
septic shock
Define changes to the definition of sepsis and septic
shock as defined by Sepsis-3
Explain the significance of early goal directed therapy
(EGDT)
Identify the recent literature challenging EGDT
Discuss evolving challenges surrounding sepsis
management
TALE AS OLD AS TIME
“Sepsis” is derived from the Greek work “sepo”
which literally means “I rot”
Believe to be “biological decay” that occurred in
colon and released “dangerous principles” and that
could cause “auto-intoxication”
“Inflammation is not itself considered to be a
disease but a salutary operation…but when it
cannot accomplish that salutary purpose…it dose
mischief”- John Hunter, MD (1728-1793)
Funk DJ, et.al. Crit Care Clin. 2009 Jan; 25(1):83-101.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
One of top 5 diagnoses for ICU admissions in US
CDC National Center for Health Statistics
621,000 cases in 2000
1.41 million cases in 2008
Increasing age in US population
Increasing life expectancy
Inflated reporting
http://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/datareports/index.html.
http://www.sccm.org/Communications/Pages/CriticalCareStats.aspx.
SIRS: FROM INSULT TO SHOCK
Micro capillary leak
Leads to peripheral vasodilation
Decreased ability of tissues to take up O2
Increased heart rate and contractility
cardiac output
Can progress to distributive shock
death
Angus DC, van der Poll T. NEJM. 2013 Aug 29; 369(9):840-51.
SEPSIS MEDIATED DISTURBANCE OF COAGULATION
Russell, JA. NEJM. 2006 Oct 19; 355(16): 1699-713.
7
BLOOD PRESSURE AND CARDIAC OUTPUT
Contractility
Afterload (SVR)
Arterial Oxygen Saturation
Hemoglobin
Preload (PCWP)
(Positive)
(Negative)
(Positive)
Arterial
Oxygen
Concentration
Oxygen Delivery
Heart
Rate
Stroke
Volume
Cardiac Output (CO)
8
Blood Pressure
THE RISE OF EGDT: RIVERS, ET.AL.
Inclusion criteria
2/4 SIRS criteria AND
one of the following: 1)
hypotension after fluids
2) Lactate ≥ 4
Groups
1) EGDT
2) Standard treatment
Rivers E, et.al. NEJM. 2001 Nov 8; 345(19): 1368-77.
Study performed
9 bed ED unit at a tertiary
medical center
THE RISE OF EGDT: RIVERS, ET.AL.
Primary outcome
In-hospital mortality
(p=0.009)
30.5% EGDT
45.5% standard care
Rivers E, et.al. NEJM. 2001 Nov 8; 345(19): 1368-77.
Secondary outcomes
1) Resuscitation end points
2) Organ dysfunction score
3) Coagulation related variables
4) Administered treatments
5) Consumption of health care resources
EARLY GOAL DIRECTED THERAPY (EGDT)
Hemodynamic augmentation
More “concrete” resuscitation strategy
Resuscitation end points:
Lactate clearance
Correction of pH and base deficit
Normalization of mixed venous oxygen saturation
(ScVO2)
http://www.sccm.org/Documents/SSC-Guidelines.pdf.
12
Rivers E, et.al. NEJM. 2001 Nov 8; 345(19): 1368-77.
13
Rivers E, et.al. NEJM. 2001 Nov 8; 345(19): 1368-77.
RIVERS LIMITATIONS
Single center study (large medical center)
n=263
Support by Edwards Lifesciences and Nova
Biomedical
9 bed ED with one attending physician, two
residents and three nurses
Rivers E, et.al. NEJM. 2001 Nov 8; 345(19): 1368-77.
10+ YEARS OF EARLY GOAL DIRECTED
THERAPY
2001: Rivers, et.al
published in NEJM
2002: Surviving
Sepsis Campaign
2004: First
guidelines
published
http://www.survivingsepsis.org/About-SSC/Pages/History.aspx.
2005:
Implementing the
Surviving Sepsis
Campaign (SSC)
2008: 2nd edition
of guidelines
published
2012: 3rd edition of
guidelines
THE CURRENT STATE OF SEPSIS
MANAGEMENT
INITIAL RESUSCITATION: CURRENT
GUIDELINES
CVP
8-12 mmHg
12-15 mmHg in intubated patients
MAP ≥ 65 mmHg
Urine output ≥ 0.5 ml/kg/hr
ScVO2 70%
Normalization of lactate levels
http://www.sccm.org/Documents/SSC-Guidelines.pdf.
ANTIMICROBIAL THERAPY AND SOURCE
CONTROL
Broad spectrum antibiotics within one hour
Empiric combination beyond 3-5 days inappropriate
Source control within 12 hours if possible
Least insult in severely septic patients
Remove lines if possible source
Oral chlorhexidine
http://www.sccm.org/Documents/SSC-Guidelines.pdf.
HEMODYNAMIC SUPPORT
30 mL/kg of fluids
Crystalloids preferred
Albumin if needed
Continued fluid administration as long as needed
Vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥ 65 mmHg
Norepinephrine (NE) preferred + low dose vasopressin
Epinephrine as needed or in place of NE
Dopamine as alternative only in certain patient
population
Phenylephrine only as salvage therapy
http://www.sccm.org/Documents/SSC-Guidelines.pdf.
INOTROPIC AGENTS, STEROIDS AND BLOOD
Trail of dobutamine in selected patients
Myocardial dysfunction
Hypoperfusion despite volume resuscitation and
vasopressor therapy
Hydrocortisone in those patients refractory to
volume resuscitation and vasopressor therapy
200 mg/day as continuous infusion
Red blood cell transfusion
After hypoperfusion resolved
Goal 7.0-9.0 g/dL
http://www.sccm.org/Documents/SSC-Guidelines.pdf.
TESTING YOUR KNOWLEDGE
https://kahoot.it/#/
Launch Kahoot
Game PIN: 582890
THE PARADIGM SHIFT
Challenging the cornerstone of septic shock
management
PROCESS TRIAL
Inclusion criteria
2/4 SIRS criteria AND
one of the following: 1)
hypotension after fluids
2) Lactate ≥ 4
Study groups
1) Protocol based EGDT
2) Protocol based PBST
3) Usual care
ProCESS Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 May 1; 370(18): 1683-93.
Study performed
31 EDs in the US
Protocol based
“standard care”
protocol
ProCESS Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 May 1; 370(18): 1683-93.
PROCESS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
OUTCOMES
Primary outcome
In-hospital all cause mortality
at 60 days (p=0.83)*
21% EGDT
18.2% PBST
18.9% usual care
ProCESS Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 May 1; 370(18): 1683-93.
Secondary outcomes
1) All cause mortality at 60 days
2) Cumulative mortality at 90 days
and 1 year
3) Duration of CV failure
4) Respiratory failure
5) Acute renal failure
6) Duration of hospital stay
7) Discharge disposition
PROCESS LIMITATIONS
All large academic medical centers
Extensive care team
Central line placement
56.5% in PBST
57.9% in the usual care
Slightly sicker group in Rivers, et. al?
ProCESS Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 May 1; 370(18): 1683-93.
ARISE TRIAL
Inclusion criteria
2/4 SIRS criteria AND
one of the following: 1)
hypotension after fluids
2) Lactate ≥ 4
Study groups
1) EGDT
2) Usual care
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
Study performed
51 centers in variety of sites
ARISE TRIAL
Primary outcome
Death from any cause within 90
days ((p=0.90)
18.6% in EGDT
18.8% usual care
Secondary outcomes
1) Survival time at 90 days
2) Mortality in the ICU
3) Mortality at 28 days
4) In-hospital mortality at 60 days
5) Cause specific morality at 90 days
6) Length of stay in ED, ICU and elsewhere in hospital
7) Receipt and duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor
support or RRT
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
ARISE SECONDARY OUTCOMES (CONT)
Destination at the time of discharge
Limitation of therapy
Adverse events
Subgroup analysis a priori for primary outcome
Country, age, APACHE II score, mechanical ventilation, refractory
hypotension, lactate level and IV fluid administration
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
ARISE LIMITATIONS
Extensive care team
? Reduced risk of death
Only ~5% of patients LTCF vs ProCESS where 16% of
patients were nursing home residents before hospital
admission
ARISE Investigators, et.al. NEJM. 2014 Oct 16; 371(16): 1496-506.
PROMISE TRIAL
Inclusion criteria
2/4 SIRS criteria AND one of the
following: 1) hypotension after
fluids 2) Lactate ≥ 4
Study groups
1) EGDT
2) Usual care
Mouncey, et.al. NEJM. 2015 Apr 2; 372 (14): 1301-11.
Study performed
56 hospitals in England
PROMISE TRIAL
Primary outcome
All cause mortality at 90 days
29.% EGDT
29.2% usual group
Mouncey, et.al. NEJM. 2015 Apr 2; 372 (14): 1301-11.
Secondary outcomes
1) SOFA scores at 6 hours
2) Receipt of advanced CV, respiratory or renal support
and number of days free from such support (first 28 days)
3) Length of stay in ED, ICU and hopsital
4) Duration of survival
PROMISE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
OUTCOMES (CONT.)
All cause mortality at 28 days and 1 year
Health related quality of life
Resource use
Costs at 90 days and 1 year
Adverse events
Up to 30 days
Mouncey, et.al. NEJM. 2015 Apr 2; 372 (14): 1301-11.
PROMISE TRIAL LIMITATIONS
Difficult to enroll patients on nights and weekends
Lower mortality rate overall
Less sick at baseline versus Rivers trial
Antibiotics given earlier versus Rivers trial
Mouncey, et.al. NEJM. 2015 Apr 2; 372 (14): 1301-11.
SURVIVING SEPSIS CAMPAIGN SPEAKS
http://www.survivingsepsis.org/Guidelines/Pages/default.aspx.
TESTING YOUR KNOWLEDGE
https://kahoot.it/#/
Launch Kahoot
Game PIN: 725495
SEPSIS-3
New definitions for an old problem
SEPSIS-3
The Third International Consensus Definitions for
Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)
Task force of 19 experts
Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and
European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM)
Attempt to to provide uniformity of diagnosis of
sepsis and septic shock
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
EVOLUTION OF SEPSIS DEFINITIONS
1991:
ACCP/SCCM
Conference
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
2001:
International
Sepsis Definitions
Conference
2016: Sepsis-3
WHY WAS SEPSIS-3 NEEDED?
Limitations of previous definitions
Multiple definitions and terminologies
2001 consensus further muddied the waters
No gold standard diagnostic test
Clearer definitions
Improved understanding sepsis pathobiology
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF SEPSIS
90% of public unaware
of sepsis
Poorly understood
outside of medical
community
Long term sequelea
Nebulous definitions
Vincent JL. Crit Care. 2012 Sep 13; 16(5): 152.
http://www.world-sepsis-day.org.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF SEPSIS
http://www.world-sepsis-day.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNz3S3tvYLA
1992 CONSENSUS DEFINITION
CHEST.1992 Jun;101 (6):1644-55.
Insult
Systemic inflammatory
response (SIRS)
Sepsis
Severe
Sepsis
Septic shock
DEFINING THE DISEASE CONTINUUM OF SEPSIS
From initial insult to shock-traditional views
46
2001 TASK FORCE: ACCP/SCCM
Dellinger RP, et.al. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Feb; 39(2): 165-228.
Levy MM, et.al. Intensive Care Med. 2003 Apr; 29(4); 530-8.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS: THE PROBLEM WITH
SIRS
Focus on inflammatory excess
Pathogen factors:
Microbe
Site of infection
Host factors:
Chronic disease states
Immunosuppression at baseline
Age, sex, race
Genetic characteristics
Performs poorly in discriminant and construct
validity
Angus DC, Wax RS. Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul; 29(7 Suppl): S109-16.
Angus DC, van der Poll T. NEJM. 2013 Nov 21; 369(9):840-851.
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
http://leanmuscleproject.com/exercising-when-sick/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nurse-challenges-jeremy-huntjob-6936259
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS: ORGAN
DYSFUNCTION OR FAILURE
Various scoring systems available
Predominant score=SOFA
Limitations of SOFA
Labs
Cutoffs developed by consensus
Unfamiliar in non-critical care areas
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS: SEPTIC SHOCK
Heterogeneity in mortality
across current definitions
Mixed bag of in clinical
variables
Take home: who’s really
sick?
http://petsittersoflasvegas.com/need-puppy-gets-sick/
SOFA SCORE
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPSIS: NEW DEFINITION
Life threating organ dysfunction caused by
dysregulated host response to infection
In-hospital mortality >10%
Shift of SIRS criteria to aid in diagnosis
Emphasis on life threatening organ dysfunction
Basically old definition of “severe sepsis”
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
HOW DO WE DEFINE “DYSREGULATED”
No current clinical measures
Best estimate of those most likely to have sepsis
Interrogation of large data sets iCorrelation with
outcomes
Multivariable regression of 21 bedside and lab
values defined 2001 task force criteria
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPSIS: HOW’D WE ARRIVE HERE
>140,000 patients with suspected infection
Outcomes to assess predictive validity:
Mortality and ICU stay of ≥ 72 hours
Inside and outside ICU
Criteria were analyzed in 4 external US and non-US
data sets
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPSIS: HOW’D WE ARRIVE HERE?
ICU mortality: SOFA and Logistic Organ
Dysfunction System superior to SIRS
AUROC=0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.76 for SOFA
AUROC=0.72, 95% CI, 0.7-0.73 for change in SOFA
AUROC=0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76 for LODS
AUROC=0.64; 95% CI, 0.62-0.66 for SIRS
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPSIS: HOW’D WE ARRIVE HERE?
Outside ICU mortality: SOFA or change in SOFA
similar to SIRS
AUROC=0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.8 for SOFA
AUROC=0.79; 95% CI, 0.78-0.79 for change in SOFA
AUROC=0.76; 95% CI, 0.75-0.77 for SIRS
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
LIMITATIONS OF SEPSIS DEFINITION
Studied only those with documented or suspected
infection
Simple diagnostic criteria
No measurements distinguish chronic from acute
dysfunction
Two more commonly known outcomes associated
with sepsis
Time course not linear
Prospective validation needed
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SCREENING FOR SEPSIS
Outside of ICU
Quick SOFA (qSOFA)
2 or more of the
following:
Respiratory rate ≥ 22
Altered mental status*
SBP ≤ 100 mmHg
ICU patients
SOFA score superior to
qSOFA
Modifying effects in
ICU
No role for lactate**
*Glasgow Coma Scale ≤13 but reduced to AMS to reduce calculation burden (AMS represents anything <15)
**Addition of lactate measurement did not meaningfully improve prediction validity but may help identify patients at
intermediate risk
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPTIC SHOCK: NEW DEFINITION
Persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to
maintain MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg AND serum lactate > 2
mmol/L DESPITE adequate volume resuscitation
Certain subset of septic patients
Increased morality >40%
Broader view from 2001 task force
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
SEPTIC SHOCK: HOW’D WE ARRIVE HERE?
Goal to identify those patients at highest risk of
mortality as defined as having “septic shock”
Systematic review and meta-analysis
44 studies patients reporting septic shock outcomes
92 studies reporting different cutoffs to identify septic
shock
> 165,000 patients
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
SEPTIC SHOCK: HOW’D WE ARRIVE HERE?
Delphi process
3 rounds
Cohort studies
Hypotension after fluid resuscitation, vasopressor
therapy, lactate >2 mmol/L and lactate ≤ 2 mmol/L
6 groups either alone or in combo
2 logistic regression models to test for:
True mortality using above markers AND independent
association of the criteria adjusted for covariates
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
SEPTIC SHOCK: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND
META-ANALYSIS RESULTS
Systematic review
Wide heterogeneity in shock criteria
Two meta-analysis
Nearly 4-fold difference in septic shock mortality
depending upon definitions
Separate meta-analysis exploring clinical criteria of
septic shock
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
SEPTIC SHOCK: DELPHI STUDY
1st round
Persistent hypotension, vasopressor therapy,
hyperlactatemia
2nd round
Descriptive analysis of SSC database
Predictive validity analyses
3rd round
Provided analyses to task force members
New definition and clinical criteria for septic shock
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
DELPHI STUDY: ROUND 2
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
COHORT STUDIES
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
LIMITATIONS OF SEPTIC SHOCK DEFINITION
Quality of studies from systematic review
Observational reports only
Limited to adult population
Delphi derived variables only to assess definition
No gold standard of septic shock currently
Missing data
Prospective validation needed
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87.
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING: DEFINITIONS
Old definitions
Sepsis: SIRS +
suspected source of
infection
Severe sepsis: sepsis
+ end organ damage
Septic shock:
hypotension despite
adequate fluid
resuscitation
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.
New definitions
Sepsis: Syndrome with
dysregulated host
response + presence of
organ dysfunction
Septic shock: subset of
patients with circulatory
and cellular/metabolic
abnormalities that
highly increases
mortality
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING: CLINICAL
CRITERIA FOR SEPSIS
http://www.mdcalc.com/sirs-sepsis-and-septic-shock-criteria/
https://foamcast.org/2016/02/21/sepsis-redefined/
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING: CLINICAL
CRITERIA FOR SEVERE SEPSIS
Old definitions
New definitions
NO LONGER EXISTS
https://foamcast.org/2016/02/21/sepsis-redefined/
COMPARING AND CONTRASTING: CLINICAL
CRITERIA FOR SEPTIC SHOCK
Old definitions
https://foamcast.org/2016/02/21/sepsis-redefined/
New definitions
TESTING YOUR KNOWLEDGE
https://kahoot.it/#/
Launch Kahoot
Game PIN:758192
CURRENT CHALLENGES
SEP-1: EARLY MANAGEMENT BUNDLE,
SEVERE/SEPSIS AND SEPTIC SHOCK
Measure aimed to assess
quality of sepsis care
Follows SSC
Measure assessing those
processes associated
with better care
www.cms.org
WHY SEPSIS?
2009 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ)
High mortality for sepsis comparatively
Rising hospitals stays related to sepsis
Frequent cause of re-hospitalizations
Medicare covered 58.1% of sepsis-related hospital
stays
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
GOALS FOR SEP-1
Efficient, effective and
timely high quality sepsis
care
Reduce mortality
Support of IOM’s aim for
quality improvement
More affordable care
Provide standard
operating procedure
http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/
SEP-1 DESCRIPTION: DART
www.qualitynet.org
SEP-1 DESCRIPTION: DART
www.qualitynet.org
HOW IS THIS MEASURE CALCULATED?
Denominator: inpatients ≥ 18 with ICD-10-CM
Principal or other diagnosis code of sepsis, severe
sepsis or septic shock
Numerator: ALL measures must be completed to
pass the measure
www.qualitynet.org
CONFLICTS WITH SEP-1 AND NEW
LITERATURE
SEP-1 follow current SSC definitions for sepsis,
severe sepsis and septic shock
Role out of SEP-1 initiatives across hospitals
Clinicians following new guidelines
Confusion on which guidelines to follow
SEP-1 CHALLENGES
Very complicated roll out
Team work required
Significant impact on patient outcomes
Large patient population
Two “time-clocks”
http://epmonthly.com/article/understanding-the-new-sep-1-sepsis-rollout/
SEP-1 CHALLENGES
Different requirements for severe sepsis and septic
shock
Multiple exclusion criteria
Documentation key
Diagnosis anywhere in the hospital
http://epmonthly.com/article/understanding-the-new-sep-1-sepsis-rollout/
FAQS FOR SEP-1
Antibiotic administration
Combination
Timing
Adequate volume resuscitation
Timing of administration
Rate of administration
Who documents what?
Documentation verbiage
http://www.mhanet.com/mhaimages/Sepsis_FAQ.pdf
PHARMACISTS CONCERNS
Adverse effects
Antibiotic exposure
Protocol development
Involvement with Code
Sepsis
SURVIVING SEPSIS CAMPAIGN SPEAKS
http://www.survivingsepsis.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/SSC-Statements-SepsisDefinitions-3-2016.pdf
TAKE HOME MESSAGES
Sepsis is an evolving disease state
Sepsis-3 definitions aimed to identify those patients
at highest risk morbidity and mortality
Clinicians are hyperaware of sepsis
Trio of trials performed to test the external validity of
EGDT
Making a sepsis management “one size fits all” plan
is challenging
Regulatory mandates playing catchup with new
definitions
TESTING YOUR KNOWLEDGE
https://kahoot.it/#/
Game PIN: 47959
Launch Kahoot
QUESTIONS