Abstract
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide recommendations on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. This review discusses what is new or different in the 2021 SSC adult sepsis guidelines compared to 2016. The guidelines include new weak recommendations for use of balanced fluid over saline 0.9%, use of intravenous corticosteroids for septic shock when there is ongoing vasopressor requirement, and peripheral initiation of intravenous vasopressors over delaying initiation in order to obtain central venous access. As before, there is a strong recommendation to initiate antimicrobials within 1 h of sepsis and septic shock, but there are now additional recommendations when the diagnosis is uncertain. The recommendation for initial fluid resuscitation in septic shock of 30 mL/kg crystalloid has been downgraded from strong to weak. Finally, there are 12 new recommendations addressing long-term outcomes from sepsis, including strong recommendations to screen for economic and social support and to make referrals for follow-up where available; use shared decision-making in post-intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge planning; reconcile medications at both ICU and hospital discharge; provide information about sepsis and its sequelae in written and verbal hospital discharge summary; and to provide assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge.
Zusammenfassung
Die internationalen Leitlinien der Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) für die Behandlung von Sepsis und septischem Schock enthalten Empfehlungen für die Versorgung von erwachsenen Patienten mit Sepsis (bzw. mit Sepsisrisiko) im Krankenhaus. In dieser Übersicht wird erläutert, was in den 2021 erarbeiteten SSC-Leitlinien für Sepsis bei Erwachsenen im Vergleich zu 2016 neu bzw. anders ist. Die Leitlinien enthalten neue schwache Empfehlungen für die Verwendung von balancierter Flüssigkeit anstelle von 0,9%iger Natriumchloridlösung, für den Einsatz intravenöser Kortikosteroide bei septischem Schock, wenn ein anhaltender Bedarf für Vasopressoren besteht, und dafür, intravenöse Vasopressoren schon peripher einzuleiten, statt erst verzögert, wenn ein zentralvenöser Zugang besteht. Nach wie vor wird dringend empfohlen, bei Sepsis und septischem Schock innerhalb von einer Stunde mit einer antimikrobiellen Therapie zu beginnen, doch gibt es nun zusätzliche Empfehlungen, wenn die Diagnose nicht sicher ist. Die Empfehlung für eine initiale Flüssigkeitszufuhr bei septischem Schock von 30 ml/kg Kristalloid wurde von stark auf schwach herabgestuft. Schließlich gibt es 12 neue Empfehlungen, die sich mit den Langzeitfolgen der Sepsis befassen, darunter die nachdrücklichen Empfehlungen, hinsichtlich finanzieller und sozialer Unterstützung zu screenen und, falls verfügbar, zur Nachsorge zu überweisen, bei der Planung der Verlegung von der Intensivstation (ICU) und der Entlassung aus der stationären Behandlung die gemeinsame Entscheidungsfindung zu nutzen, die Medikation sowohl auf der ICU als auch bei der Krankenhausentlassung abzustimmen, Informationen über die Sepsis und ihre Folgen in der schriftlichen und mündlichen Zusammenfassung der Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus bereitzustellen und nach der Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus ein Assessment der und eine Nachsorge für körperliche, kognitive und emotionale Probleme zu anzubieten.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide guidance on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis [1, 2]. The first SSC guidelines were published in 2004, with subsequent updates published in 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2021, as well as separate guidelines for pediatric sepsis and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2020. The 2021 adult sepsis guideline panel included 60 multiprofessional expert clinicians and methodologists from 22 countries, as well as 11 members of the public representing patients and families. The guidelines were endorsed by 24 professional organizations. This review discusses what is new or different in the 2021 SSC adult sepsis guidelines compared to 2016.
Scope and methods
The 2021 guidelines are based on literature published until July 2019. They contain a new section focused on long-term outcomes and recovery from sepsis. This new section was added because an estimated 38 million people survive sepsis each year [3], many of whom experience poor longer-term outcomes [4], and the 2017 World Health Organization resolution on sepsis called for better support of sepsis survivors [5]. In Germany, sepsis remains not only a significant cause of hospital admission and mortality [6], but also of long-term physical and psychological morbidity [7, 8].
To make space for recommendations related to longer-term outcomes and recovery from sepsis, other sections of the guidelines were shortened. Specifically, the number of recommendations related to adjunctive or supportive care (e.g., nutrition, blood product transfusion, anticoagulation, renal replacement therapy, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and sedation) were reduced. The rationale for this change was that many of these recommendations were not specific to sepsis, and are covered in other guidelines addressing the care of hospitalized or critically ill patients.
New to the 2021 Guidelines, recommendations were formulated using the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework, which takes into account not only the magnitude of effect and quality of evidence, but also patient values, resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility [9]. Based on the EtD framework, recommendations are more likely to be weak (“we suggest”) than strong (“we recommend”) when there is low certainty of evidence, close balance between desirable and undesirable effects, or substantial resources are required for the intervention.
Recommendations
The 2021 Guidelines have 93 statements, including 54 weak recommendations, 15 strong recommendations, 15 best practice statements, and 9 statements of no recommendation. In the following, we highlight a subset of statements that are new or revised since 2016.
qSOFA as a single screening tool for sepsis
qSOFA (a three-point tool incorporating altered mentation, elevated respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure \(\leq\) 100 mm Hg) was introduced in 2016 to facilitate rapid risk-stratification of patients with suspected or proven infection [10]. However, there has been confusion about the goal of qSOFA and how to incorporate it into practice [11]. While qSOFA provides prognostic information, it is neither sensitive nor specific for sepsis [12]. As such, the guidelines now include a strong recommendation against using qSOFA as a single screening tool for sepsis.
30 ml/kg initial fluid bolus
The guidelines suggest delivering 30 ml/kg intravenous crystalloid fluid for patients with sepsis-induced hypotension or septic shock. The average volume of fluid received prerandomization in the PROCESS [13], PROMISE [14], and ARISE [15] trials was in the range of 30 ml/kg, suggesting that most patients with sepsis-induced hypotension need at least this volume of fluid [16]. Furthermore, in a multicenter observational study, implementation of a sepsis treatment bundle including a 30 ml/kg fluid bolus was associated with increased fluid administration and improved mortality, particularly among patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease [17]. However, there are no prospective trials comparing different fluid volumes for initial resuscitation in sepsis. Overall, based on limitations of the evidence, the panel downgraded 30 ml/kg resuscitation volume from a strong recommendation to a weak recommendation.
Ongoing resuscitation
The 2021 guidelines include a statement of “no recommendation” for using a fluid-liberal versus fluid-restrictive resuscitation strategy among patients with ongoing signs of hypoperfusion after the initial 30 ml/kg crystalloid fluid bolus. While five pilot trials were identified comparing fluid-liberal versus fluid-restrictive resuscitation strategies, they were small and used variable methods to promote liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies. Thus, despite these studies, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation. Several trials are ongoing to address this question (NCT03668236; NCT03434028).
Capillary refill time as an adjunct measure for guiding resuscitation
As in 2016, the guidelines suggest targeting resuscitation to decrease serum lactate when elevated, over not using serum lactate. New to the 2021 guideline, however, there is also a suggestion to use capillary refill time as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion to guide resuscitation. This weak recommendation was informed by the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial, in which patients randomized to a resuscitation strategy guided by capillary refill time versus lactate had similar 28-day mortality (34.9% vs 43.4%, p = 0.06) [18].
Antimicrobial timing recommendations incorporate diagnostic certainty and illness severity
As in 2016, the 2021 guidelines strongly recommend administration of antimicrobials as soon as possible, ideally within 1 h, for patients with sepsis and septic shock. However, recognizing that sepsis diagnosis is often uncertain in practice [19,20,21], the 2021 guidelines include additional recommendations for antimicrobial timing when sepsis is possible (Table 1). For patients without shock, the guideline recommends a rapid assessment of infectious versus noninfectious causes of illness, and administration of antimicrobials within 3 h if concern for infection persists. However, for patients with shock, the guidelines recommend administration of antimicrobials immediately—recognizing that the risk of delaying antimicrobials is greater among patients with septic shock [22, 23]. These new recommendations for possible sepsis, which are stratified by presence of shock, acknowledge the urgency of antimicrobial treatment for sepsis while also trying to avoid indiscriminate antimicrobial use by encouraging a rapid evaluation prior to treatment among patients without shock.
Balanced fluids over saline 0.9%
New in 2021, the guideline suggests using balanced fluids over saline 0.9%. This recommendation is informed by a network meta-analysis [24] and the cluster-randomized SMART trial [25]. Among the prespecified subgroup with sepsis in SMART, 30-day mortality was lower in patients randomized to balanced fluid versus saline (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67, 0.94) [26]. Since the 2021 guideline recommendations were finalized, the BaSICS trial examining balanced fluids (Plasma-Lyte-148) versus saline was published [27], and will need to be incorporated into future meta-analyses. Among patients with sepsis, 90-day mortality was similar among those randomized to balanced fluid versus saline (46.7% vs 49.0%) [27]. Also, in contrast to the SMART trial, there was no significant difference in the development of moderate to severe acute kidney injury. However, the majority of patients received non-study fluid prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission and enrollment into the trial.
Other fluids
As in prior years, the 2021 guidelines recommend crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation; recommend against use of starches for resuscitation; suggest against use of gelatins due to inconclusive effect on mortality but increased adverse effects and increased costs; and suggest using albumin among patients who received large volumes of crystalloid (over using crystalloid alone). However, due to limited data, the guidelines do not provide a specific threshold of crystalloid fluid volume above which albumin should be considered.
Peripheral vasopressor initiation
New in 2021, the guidelines suggest starting vasopressors peripherally over delaying initiation until central venous access is secured. This recommendation is based on mounting evidence that peripheral administration of intravenous vasopressors is safe, particularly if infused proximally and for short periods of time (< 6 h) [28, 29]. Furthermore, peripheral initiation of vasopressors is associated with shorter time to administration and faster time to achieving goal blood pressure [30].
Corticosteroids for septic shock
The 2016 guidelines suggested against using intravenous (IV) hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy were able to restore hemodynamic stability. The 2021 guidelines now suggest using IV corticosteroids for adults with septic shock who have an ongoing vasopressor requirement. The revised recommendation takes into account several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [31,32,33] and updated meta-analyses [34, 35], in which corticosteroid therapy was found to shorten the duration of shock but have unclear effect on mortality. The panel judged the desirable effects of shock resolution to outweigh the undesirable effects of corticosteroid therapy and supported a weak recommendation in favor of using low-dose corticosteroid therapy in septic shock.
Vitamin C for septic shock
The 2021 guidelines suggest against using IV vitamin C for septic shock. The panel completed a meta-analysis of available RCTs, and the balance of effects was judged to favor neither vitamin C nor comparator. In the absence of a benefit, the panel suggested against use.
Long-term outcomes and recovery from sepsis
The 2021 guidelines include 12 new recommendations addressing the long-term outcome and recovery from sepsis (Table 2). These include strong recommendations to screen for economic and social support and make referrals for follow-up where available; use shared decision-making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning; reconcile medications at both ICU and hospital discharge; provide information about sepsis and its sequelae in written and verbal hospital discharge summary; and to provide assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. While some might argue that these recommendations are common sense, the available data suggest that implementation into practice has lagged [36, 37]. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding timing of outpatient follow-up or provision of early cognitive therapy.
Conclusion
The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines include several new or revised recommendations on early sepsis management, as well as a new set of recommendations on peri-discharge management to enhance long-term outcomes from sepsis. There were several important aspects of management for which the panel could not provide a recommendation (e.g., ongoing fluid management strategy and early cognitive rehabilitation), underscoring the need for further research to guide care for sepsis [38,39,40].
Change history
01 December 2023
A note on the supplement has been added after the conflict of interest.
References
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W et al (2021) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med 49(11):e1063–e1143
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W et al (2021) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med 47(11):1181–1247. 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM et al (2020) Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 395(10219):200–211
Prescott HC, Angus DC (2018) Enhancing recovery from sepsis. JAMA 319(1):62–75
Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S (2017) Recognizing sepsis as a global health priority—A WHO resolution. N Engl J Med 377(5):414–417
Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mikolajetz A, Schwarzkopf D et al (2018) Challenges in assessing the burden of sepsis and understanding the inequalities of sepsis outcomes between National Health Systems: secular trends in sepsis and infection incidence and mortality in Germany. Intensive Care Med 44(11):1826–1835
Fleischmann-Struzek C, Rose N, Freytag A et al (2021) Epidemiology and costs of post-sepsis morbidity, nursing care dependency, and mortality in Germany. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.25.21252347v1
Hartog CS, Bodechtel U, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Denke C, Weiss B, Reinhart K (2020) Sepsis: sequelae for affected patients and the health care system. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 145(4):252–259
Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J et al (2017) GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol 81:101–110
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA 315(8):801–810
Singer M, Shankar-Hari M (2018) qSOFA, cue confusion. Ann Intern Med 168(4):293–295
Serafim R, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Povoa P (2018) A comparison of the quick-SOFA and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 153(3):646–655
Yealy DM, Kellum JA et al (2014) A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med 370:1683–1693
Peake SL et al (2014) Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med 371:1496–1506
Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS et al (2015) Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med 372:150317011022003
Rowan KM, Angus DC et al (2017) Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock—A patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 376(23):2223–2234
Liu VX, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP et al (2016) Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 193:1264–1270
Hernandez G, Ospina-Tascon GA, Damiani LP et al (2019) Effect of a resuscitation strategy targeting peripheral perfusion status vs serum lactate levels on 28-day mortality among patients with septic shock: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321(7):654–664
Prescott HC, Iwashyna TJ (2019) Improving sepsis treatment by embracing diagnostic uncertainty. Ann Am Thorac Soc 16(4):426–429
Rhee C, Kadri SS, Danner RL et al (2016) Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes. Crit Care 20:89
Klein Klouwenberg PM, Cremer OL, van Vught LA et al (2015) Likelihood of infection in patients with presumed sepsis at the time of intensive care unit admission: a cohort study. Crit Care 19:319
Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC et al (2017) Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 376(23):2235–2244
Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD et al (2017) The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 196(7):856–863
Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A et al (2014) Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 161(5):347–355
Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP et al (2018) Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med 378(9):829–839
Brown RM, Wang L, Coston TD et al (2019) Balanced crystalloids versus saline in sepsis. a secondary analysis of the SMART clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 200(12):1487–1495
Zampieri FG, Machado FR, Biondi RS et al (2021) Effect of intravenous fluid treatment with a balanced solution vs 0.9 % saline solution on mortality in critically ill patients: the BaSICS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.11684
Tian DH, Smyth C, Keijzers G et al (2020) Safety of peripheral administration of vasopressor medications: A systematic review. Emerg Med Australas 32(2):220–227
Loubani OM, Green RS (2015) A systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters. J Crit Care 30(3):653.e9–653.e17
Delaney A, Finnis M, Bellomo R et al (2020) Initiation of vasopressor infusions via peripheral versus central access in patients with early septic shock: A retrospective cohort study. Emerg Med Australas 32(2):210–219
Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C et al (2018) Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med 378(9):809–818
Venkatesh B, Finfer S, Cohen J et al (2018) Adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 378(9):797–808
Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N et al (2016) Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316(5):509–518
Rygard SL, Butler E, Granholm A et al (2018) Low-dose corticosteroids for adult patients with septic shock: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 44(7):1003–1016
Fang F, Zhang Y, Tang J et al (2019) Association of corticosteroid treatment with outcomes in adult patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 179(2):213–223
Taylor SP, Chou SH, Sierra MF et al (2020) Association between adherence to recommended care and outcomes for adult survivors of sepsis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 17(1):89–97
Govindan S, Iwashyna TJ, Watson SR, Hyzy RC, Miller MA (2014) Issues of survivorship are rarely addressed during intensive care unit stays. Baseline results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11(4):587–591
Prescott HC, Iwashyna TJ, Blackwood B et al (2019) Understanding and enhancing sepsis survivorship. Priorities for research and practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 200(8):972–981
Coopersmith CM, De Backer D, Deutschman CS et al (2018) Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 46(8):1334–1356
Cassini A, Fleischmann-Struzek C, Naghavi M, Reinhart K, Allegranzi B, Group WHOSET (2021) Future directions and priorities in sepsis epidemiology research: a call for action. Bull World Health Organ 99(5):398–401
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines panel, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. This material is the result of work supported with resources and use of facilities at the Ann Arbor VA Medical Center. This manuscript represents the views of the authors, who served as co-vice-chairs for the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, but does not necessarily represent the views of Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the US government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
H.C. Prescott and M. Ostermann declare that they have no competing interests.
For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies mentioned were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.
The supplement containing this article is not sponsored by industry.
Additional information
Redaktion
Konrad Reinhart, Berlin
Tobias Welte, Hannover
Scan QR code & read article online
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prescott, H.C., Ostermann, M. What is new and different in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 118 (Suppl 2), 75–79 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-023-01028-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-023-01028-5