Juffermans, Nicole

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.

BACKGROUNDTransfusion‐related acute lung injury (TRALI) is a serious complication of blood transfusion and is among the leading causes of transfusion‐related morbidity and mortality in most developed countries. In the past decade, the pathophysiology of this potentially life‐threatening syndrome has been increasingly elucidated, large cohort studies have identified associated patient conditions and transfusion risk factors, and preventive strategies have been successfully implemented. These new insights provide a rationale for updating the 2004 consensus definition of TRALI.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSAn international expert panel used the Delphi methodology to develop a redefinition of TRALI by modifying and updating the 2004 definition. Additionally, the panel reviewed issues related to TRALI nomenclature, patient conditions associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and TRALI, TRALI pathophysiology, and standardization of reporting of TRALI cases.RESULTSIn the redefinition, the term “possible TRALI” has been dropped. The terminology of TRALI Type I (without an ARDS risk factor) and TRALI Type II (with an ARDS risk factor or with mild existing ARDS) is proposed. Cases with an ARDS risk factor that meet ARDS diagnostic criteria and where respiratory deterioration over the 12 hours before transfusion implicates the risk factor as causative should be classified as ARDS. TRALI remains a clinical diagnosis and does not require detection of cognate white blood cell antibodies.CONCLUSIONSClinicians should report all cases of posttransfusion pulmonary edema to the transfusion service so that further investigation can allow for classification of such cases as TRALI (Type I or Type II), ARDS, transfusion‐associated circulatory overload (TACO), or TRALI or TACO cannot distinguish or an alternate diagnosis.