Sepsis Stewardship Programs: Methods and Results
Hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is still unacceptably high despite advances in understanding of the physiopathology and the numerous clinical trials on potential therapies. Even with optimal treatment, the mortality rate of patients with septic shock exceeds 40 % and has not varied significantly in the last 5 years [1,2]. Early identification and proper management of patients with sepsis are key factors for reducing the observed mortality and have been the main goal of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) by the development of evidence-based guidelines and the recommendation of specific bundles of care [3,4]. Some studies have reported a potential benefit on patient outcome by implementing guidelines and bundle care strategies in clinical practice but wide adoption of these approaches is rare. Moreover, it is still unclear whether the observed benefit is more due to the effect of the recommended treatments or to a general increase in the awareness of the sepsis problem as a result of specific educational and stewardship programs.
KeywordsSeptic Shock Severe Sepsis Septic Shock Patient Absolute Risk Reduction Survive Sepsis Campaign
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.GiVITI (2010) Margherita Project. Available at http://www.giviti.marionegri.it/ Accessed Oct 2011Google Scholar
- 10.Castellanos-Ortega A, Suberviola B, Garcia-Astudillo LA, et al (2010) Impact of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients: results of a three-year follow-up quasi-experimental study. Crit Care Med 38: 1036–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Moro ML RD, Peghetti A, Melotti R (2007) Progetto LaSER Lotta alla sepsi in Emilia-Romagna Razionale, obiettivi, metodi e strumenti. Dossier 143. Available at http://asr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/wcm/asr/collana_dossier/doss143/link/doss143.pdf Accessed Oct 2011Google Scholar
- 13.Girardis M, Baricchi R, Caramelli F, et al. (2011) Progetto lotta alla sepsi in Emilia Romagna. Minerva Anestesiol (in press)Google Scholar
- 23.Hitti EA, Lewin JJ, 3rd, Lopez J, et al (2011) Improving door-to-antibiotic time in severely septic emergency department patients. J Emerg Med 2011 Jul 5. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 26.Reinhart K, Brunkhorst FM, Bone HG, et al (2010) Prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of sepsis: 1st revision of S-2k guidelines of the German Sepsis Society (Deutsche Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG)) and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinare Vereinigung fur Intensiv-und Notfallmedizin (DIVI)). Ger Med Sci 8: Doc14Google Scholar
- 27.Alejandria MM, Lansang MA, Dans LF, Mantaring JB (2002) Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD001090Google Scholar
- 32.Berlot G, Vassallo MC, Busetto N, et al (2012) Relationship between the timing of administration of IgM and IgA enriched immunoglobulins in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock and the outcome: A retrospective analysis. J Crit Care (in press)Google Scholar