Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Sir: We read with interest the recent revision of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines by Dellinger et al. [1]. The use of the GRADE system to classify the strength of the recommendations has certainly improved the guidelines. However, we regret that not all guidelines were adjusted according to the current literature.
First of all, the absence of a recommendation regarding selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) is striking. The guidelines group was evenly split, with equal numbers weakly in favor and against recommending the use of SDD. This is remarkable, since SDD is one of the best ever evaluated therapies in intensive care medicine, with more than 50 randomized controlled trials and 10 meta-analyses showing that SDD reduces pneumonia by 65% and mortality by 22% [2].
The authors gave several reasons why they chose not to recommend SDD in their guidelines. They argue that no studies regarding SDD specifically focused on septic patients. However, several other guidelines based on general ICU populations (i.e., stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, glucose control and bicarbonate therapy) received strong recommendations.
Furthermore, the authors state that studies comparing SDD with non-antimicrobial interventions, such as ventilator bundles, are needed. Are they seriously suggesting that until these studies have been performed a therapy with proven high efficiency should be withheld from patients with severe sepsis? It seems that no scientific arguments, no study whatsoever could change the apparently biased authors.
The main argument against the use of SDD is the persistent concern regarding emergence of antimicrobial resistance in critically ill patients. Antimicrobial resistance was not a clinical problem in 10 SDD studies monitoring resistance for 2–9 years [3–11]. SDD even seemed to reduce the resistance of aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, the target microorganisms of SDD [12, 13], possibly because the addition of enteral to parenteral antimicrobials prevents spontaneous mutation of target bacteria and eradicates mutants. In their “rationale” the authors are especially concerned about emergence of resistant Gram-positive infections. The SDD prophylaxis is not active against vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and may promote gut overgrowth of these intrinsically resistant bacteria. Therefore, in ICUs with endemic MRSA enteral vancomycin is required as a component of SDD. VRE did not emerge in any of the studies using enteral vancomycin, and there is no evidence that SDD promotes infection due to Gram-positive bacteria [14–19]. On the contrary, the continued use of only systemic antibiotics may lead to a further rise in drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. We propose, therefore, that the authors of the SSC guidelines use the available literature instead of their bias.
Secondly, the strong recommendation in favor of the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is not, in our view, in line with currently available evidence. This recommendation is, like that in the guidelines of 2004, still mainly based on ancient studies performed in the 1980s [20–23], a meta-analysis from 1991 [24], and a large trial in 1998 [25] without a control arm. However, the most recent meta-analysis [26] shows no reduction of clinical important bleeding – but is somehow completely ignored. Whether the results of these older trials are applicable nowadays is questionable, since the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding has significantly decreased over recent decades due to improved ICU treatment [27, 28]. This definitely affects the balance between the benefit of prevention of gastro-intestinal bleeding and the increased risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to higher stomach pH [29]. Several recent trials show comparable rates of bleeding and endoscopic evidence of stress-related injury between treatment and placebo groups [30–33]. These results are pathophysiologically plausible, since stress ulcers are caused not by increased secretion of gastric acid, but by splanchnic hypoperfusion. Unfortunately, many recent trials only compare H2 blockers with proton pump inhibitors, without a placebo group. Altogether, according to the most recent meta-analysis and the more recent trials, a strong recommendation not to use stress ulcer prophylaxis would be more appropriate.
Thirdly, we disagree with the strength of the recommendation to reduce blood glucose levels in patients with severe sepsis. On the current evidence, this should be at most a weak recommendation. The beneficial effect of intensive insulin therapy has been demonstrated only in surgical patients, not in septic patients [34–36]. The benefit versus harm balance of intensive insulin therapy may be quite different for patients with severe sepsis than for the investigated surgical patients. It is not unreasonable to assume that septic patients may be more at risk for hypoglycemia, because sepsis may be associated with a deficiency of counterregulatory hormones. In the study of medical patients by van den Berghe [36], as well as the VISEP study [35] and the Glucontrol study [34], the risk of hypoglycemia was substantially increased, and hypoglycemia was an independent risk factor for mortality. None of these studies followed up the patients with hypoglycemia for neurocognitive impairment. Furthermore, the target glucose level of <150 mg/dl recommended in the guidelines is based solely on expert opinion and is not supported by data from any trial. Therefore, the beneficial effect, the harmlessness, and the target glucose level of intensive insulin therapy remain to be demonstrated in septic patients.
In conclusion, the revised SSC guidelines have certainly been improved by the use of the GRADE system to classify the strength of the recommendations. However, a strong recommendation in favor of the use of SDD should have been implemented. The strong recommendations in favor of stress ulcer prophylaxis and glucose control are not in line with current evidence.
References
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 34:17–60
Liberati A, D'Amico R, Pifferi, Torri V, Brazzi L (2004) Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000022
Hammond JM, Potgieter PD (1995) Long-term effects of selective decontamination on antimicrobial resistance. Crit Care Med 23:637–645
van der Voort PH, van Roon EN, Kampinga GA, Boerma EC, Gerritsen RT, Egbers PH, Kuiper MA (2004) A before–after study of multi-resistance and cost of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Infection 32:271–277
de la Cal MA, Cerda E, van Saene HK, Garcia-Hierro P, Negro E, Parra ML, Arias S, Ballesteros D (2004) Effectiveness and safety of enteral vancomycin to control endemicity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a medical/surgical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 56:175–183
Abraham E, Laterre PF, Garg R, Levy H, Talwar D, Trzaskoma BL, Francois B, Guy JS, Bruckmann M, Rea-Neto A, Rossaint R, Perrotin D, Sablotzki A, Arkins N, Utterback BG, Macias WL (2005) Drotrecogin alfa (activated) for adults with severe sepsis and a low risk of death. N Engl J Med 353:1332–1341
Stoutenbeek CP, van Saene HK, Zandstra DF (1987) The effect of oral non-absorbable antibiotics on the emergence of resistant bacteria in patients in an intensive care unit. J Antimicrob Chemother 19:513–520
Lingnau W, Berger J, Javorsky F, Fille M, Allerberger F, Benzer H (1998) Changing bacterial ecology during a five-year period of selective intestinal decontamination. J Hosp Infect 39:195–206
Leone M, Albanese J, Antonini F, Nguyen-Michel A, Martin C (2003) Long-term (6-year) effect of selective digestive decontamination on antimicrobial resistance in intensive care, multiple-trauma patients. Crit Care Med 31:2090–2095
Sarginson RE, Taylor N, Reilly N, Baines PB, van Saene HK (2004) Infection in prolonged pediatric critical illness: a prospective four-year study based on knowledge of the carrier state. Crit Care Med 32:839–847
Viviani M, van Saene HK, Dezzoni R, Silvestri L, Di Lenarda R, Berlot G, Gullo A (2005) Control of imported and acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in mechanically ventilated patients: a dose-response study of enteral vancomycin to reduce absolute carriage and infection. Anaesth Intensive Care 33:361–372
Bonten MJ, Kluytmans J, de Smet AM, Bootsma M, Hoes A (2003) Selective decontamination of digestive tract in intensive care. Lancet 362:2118–2119
Brun-Buisson C, Legrand P, Rauss A, Richard C, Montravers F, Besbes M, Meakins JL, Soussy CJ, Lemaire F (1989) Intestinal decontamination for control of nosocomial multiresistant gram-negative bacilli. Study of an outbreak in an intensive care unit. Ann Intern Med 110:873–881
de Jonge E, Schultz MJ, Spanjaard L, Bossuyt PM, Vroom MB, Dankert J, Kesecioglu J (2003) Effects of selective decontamination of digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362:1011–1016
Silvestri L, van Saene HK, Milanese M, Fontana F, Gregori D, Oblach L, Piacente N, Blazic M (2004) Prevention of MRSA pneumonia by oral vancomycin decontamination: a randomised trial. Eur Respir J 23:921–926
Bergmans DC, Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, Paling JC, van der GS, van Tiel FH, Beysens AJ, de Leeuw PW, Stobberingh EE (2001) Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:382–388
Korinek AM, Laisne MJ, Nicolas MH, Raskine L, Deroin V, Sanson-Lepors MJ (1993) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurosurgical intensive care unit patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Crit Care Med 21:1466–1473
Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Lew DP, Suter PM (1991) Oropharyngeal decontamination decreases incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. JAMA 265:2704–2710
Schardey HM, Joosten U, Finke U, Staubach KH, Schauer R, Heiss A, Kooistra A, Rau HG, Nibler R, Ludeling S, Unertl K, Ruckdeschel G, Exner H, Schildberg FW (1997) The prevention of anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy with local decontamination. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg 225:172–180
Basso N, Bagarani M, Materia A, Fiorani S, Lunardi P, Speranza V (1981) Cimetidine and antacid prophylaxis of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high risk patients. Controlled, randomized trial. Am J Surg 141:339–341
Bresalier RS, Grendell JH, Cello JP, Meyer AA (1987) Sucralfate suspension versus titrated antacid for the prevention of acute stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in critically ill patients. Am J Med 83:110–116
Poleski MH, Spanier AH (1986) Cimetidine versus antacids in the prevention of stress erosions in critically ill patients. Am J Gastroenterol 81:107–111
Stothert JC Jr, Simonowitz DA, Dellinger EP, Farley M, Edwards WA, Blair AD, Cutler R, Carrico CJ (1980) Randomized prospective evaluation of cimetidine and antacid control of gastric pH in the critically ill. Ann Surg 192:169–174
Cook DJ, Witt LG, Cook RJ, Guyatt GH (1991) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 91:519–527
Cook D, Guyatt G, Marshall J, Leasa D, Fuller H, Hall R, Peters S, Rutledge F, Griffith L, McLellan A, Wood G, Kirby A (1998) A comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 338:791–797
Messori A, Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Gorini M, Corrado A (2000) Bleeding and pneumonia in intensive care patients given ranitidine and sucralfate for prevention of stress ulcer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 321:1103–1106
Zandstra DF, Stoutenbeek CP (1994) The virtual absence of stress-ulceration related bleeding in ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation without any prophylaxis. A prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 20:335–340
Maury E, Tankovic J, Ebel A, Offenstadt G (2005) An observational study of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in intensive care units: is Helicobacter pylori the culprit? Crit Care Med 33:1513–1518
Kahn JM, Doctor JN, Rubenfeld GD (2006) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated patients: integrating evidence and judgment using a decision analysis. Intensive Care Med 32:1151–1158
Ben Menachem T, Fogel R, Patel RV, Touchette M, Zarowitz BJ, Hadzijahic N, Divine G, Verter J, Bresalier RS (1994) Prophylaxis for stress-related gastric hemorrhage in the medical intensive care unit. A randomized, controlled, single-blind study. Ann Intern Med 121:568–575
Misra UK, Kalita J, Pandey S, Mandal SK, Srivastava M (2005) A randomized placebo controlled trial of ranitidine versus sucralfate in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage for prevention of gastric hemorrhage. J Neurol Sci 239:5–10
Reusser P, Gyr K, Scheidegger D, Buchmann B, Buser M, Zimmerli W (1990) Prospective endoscopic study of stress erosions and ulcers in critically ill neurosurgical patients: current incidence and effect of acid-reducing prophylaxis. Crit Care Med 18:270–274
Kantorova I, Svoboda P, Scheer P, Doubek J, Rehorkova D, Bosakova H, Ochmann J (2004) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatogastroenterology 51:757–761
Preiser JC (2007) Intensive glycemic control in med-surg patients (European Glucontrol trial). Program and abstracts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine 36th Critical Care Congress February 17–21 Orlando, Florida
Brunkhorst FM, Kuhnt E, Engel C, Meier-Hellman A, Ragaller M, Quintel M, Weiler N, Grundling M, Oppert M, Deufel T, et al. (2005) Intensive insulin therapy in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with increased rate of hypoglycemia – results from a randomized multicenter study (VISEP). Infection 33:19–20
Van den Berghe G, Wilmer A, Hermans G, Meersseman W, Wouters PJ, Milants I, Van Wijngaerden E, Bobbaers H, Bouillon R (2006) Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med 354:449–461
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An author's reply to this comment is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1090-z.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Spoelstra - de Man, A.M.E., Girbes, A.R.J. Comment on “Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008” by Dellinger et al.. Intensive Care Med 34, 1160–1162 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1089-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1089-5