Citations

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.

160 Background: In the United States, racial/ethnic disparities in adoption of breast cancer evidence-based practices (EBPs) persist along the cancer care continuum. This scoping review applied an implementation science lens to describe the current evidence base for interventions to reduce disparities, synthesizing evidence on effective interventions while highlighting gaps in the literature. Methods: A formalized search strategy identified USA-based interventional studies aiming to improve adoption of an EBP along the breast cancer care continuum among racially/ethnically minoritized patients. Relevant articles from 1/2010 - 8/2022 (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus) were included. For each article, two reviewers screened and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. The PRISMA-ScR checklist and JBO Manual for Evidence Synthesis framework were followed. Results: Our search strategy yielded 45,215 articles. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 59 articles were retained, targeting screening (85%, 50 of 59), treatment (12%, 7 of 59), and survivorship (5%, 3 of 59) (2 targeted multiple areas). No articles targeted end-of-life care. Of these, 49% (29 of 59) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Among 24 screening RCTs, the most common interventions—and fraction with statistically significant improved screening uptake—were patient navigation (100%, 11 of 11) and patient education (80%, 4 of 5). Among 4 treatment RCTs, 3 targeted adjuvant chemotherapy uptake. Of these, 1 had significant improvements and used patient navigation. The 2 studies without significant improvements used a patient tracking tool/alert system or patient education. Among 2 survivorship RCTs, one used email interventions, resulting in significantly improved physical activity and dietary health. A second used a nurse-facilitated internet support group, resulting in significantly improved physical/psychological symptoms. Early to mid-stage implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, or fidelity) were commonly measured (81%, 48 of 59). No study measured later stage implementation outcomes (sustainability or costs). Conclusions: In multiple studies, patient navigation and education improved breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically minoritized populations. In one study, patient navigation improved completion of adjuvant treatment. Despite these studies, patient navigation is not reimbursed for cancer screening, and adoption has not been widespread. Future studies should focus on evaluating and improving later stage implementation outcomes (sustainability and costs). Based on these results, insurance reimbursement mechanisms for screening-related navigation may be warranted. Future breast cancer care delivery disparities research should also be expanded to include treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Reviewer Academy seeks to train and establish a community of trusted, reliable, and skilled peer reviewers with diverse backgrounds and interests to promote high-quality reviews for each of the SCCM journals. Goals of the Academy include building accessible resources to highlight qualities of excellent manuscript reviews; educating and mentoring a diverse group of healthcare professionals; and establishing and upholding standards for insightful and informative reviews. This manuscript will map the mission of the Reviewer Academy with a succinct summary of the importance of peer review, process of reviewing a manuscript, and the expected ethical standards of reviewers. We will equip readers to target concise, thoughtful feedback as peer reviewers, advance their understanding of the editorial process and inspire readers to integrate medical journalism into diverse professional careers.

OBJECTIVES: The reported mortality rates of cancer patients admitted to ICUs vary widely. In addition, there are no studies that examined the outcomes of critically ill cancer patients based on the geographical regions. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the mortality rates among critically ill cancer patients and provide a comparison based on geography. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included observational studies evaluating adult patients with cancer treated in ICUs. We excluded non-English studies, those with greater than 30% hematopoietic stem cell transplant or postsurgical patients, and those that evaluated a specific type of critical illness, stage of malignancy, or age group. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. Studies were classified based on the continent in which they were conducted. Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. We pooled effect sizes by geographical region. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-six studies were included (n = 110,366). The overall quality of studies was moderate. Most of the published literature was from Europe (n = 22), followed by North America (n = 9), Asia (n = 8), South America (n = 5), and Oceania (n = 2). Pooled ICU mortality rate was 38% (95% CI, 33–43%); the lowest mortality rate was in Oceania (26%; 95% CI, 22–30%) and highest in Asia (51%; 95% CI, 44–57%). Pooled hospital mortality rate was 45% (95% CI, 41–49%), with the lowest in North America (37%; 95% CI, 31–43%) and highest in Asia (54%; 95% CI, 37–71%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of cancer patients admitted to ICUs survived hospitalization. However, there was wide variability in the mortality rates, as well as the number of available studies among geographical regions. This variability suggests an opportunity to improve outcomes worldwide, through optimizing practice and research.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States ( n = 32) and Jordan ( n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.