Nunnally, Mark

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing contributions of critical care anesthesiologists to clinical practice, research, and administrative leadership of intensive care units (ICUs), relatively little is known about the subspecialty-specific clinical practice environment. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice is essential to recognize the opportunities and challenges facing critical care anesthesia, optimize staffing patterns, assess sustainability and satisfaction, and strategically plan for future activity, scope, and training. This study surveyed intensivists who are members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) to evaluate practice patterns of critical care anesthesiologists, including compensation, types of ICUs covered, models of overnight ICU coverage, and relationships between these factors. We hypothesized that variability in compensation and practice patterns would be observed between individuals. METHODS: Board-certified critical care anesthesiologists practicing in the United States were identified using the SOCCA membership distribution list and invited to take a voluntary online survey between May and June 2021. Multiple-choice questions with both single- and multiple-select options were used for answers with categorical data, and adaptive questioning was used to clarify stem-based responses. Respondents were asked to describe practice patterns at their respective institutions and provide information about their demographics, salaries, effort in ICUs, as well as other activities. RESULTS: A total of 490 participants were invited to take this survey, and 157 (response rate 32%) surveys were completed and analyzed. The majority of respondents were White (73%), male (69%), and younger than 50 years of age (82%). The cardiothoracic/cardiovascular ICU was the most common practice setting, with 69.5% of respondents reporting time working in this unit. Significant variability was observed in ICU practice patterns. Respondents reported spending an equal proportion of their time in clinical practice in the operating rooms and ICUs (median, 40%; interquartile range [IQR], 20%–50%), whereas a smaller proportion—primarily those who completed their training before 2009—reported administrative or research activities. Female respondents reported salaries that were $36,739 less than male respondents; however, this difference was not statistically different, and after adjusting for age and practice type, these differences were less pronounced (–$27,479.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], –$57,232.61 to $2273.03; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These survey data provide a current snapshot of anesthesiology critical care clinical practice patterns in the United States. Our findings may inform decision-making around the initiation and expansion of critical care services and optimal staffing patterns, as well as provide a basis for further work that focuses on intensivist satisfaction and burnout.