Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN/METHODS:Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS:Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS:The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS:We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN/METHODS:A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. METHODS:Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? CONCLUSIONS:While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. DESIGN/METHODS:We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges. SETTING/SUBJECTS/METHODS:Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps. CONCLUSIONS:Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN/METHODS:A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. METHODS:Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/D636) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; 2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; 3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; 4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; 5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and 6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? CONCLUSIONS:While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

As noted in part 1 of this series, periprocedural cardiac arrest (PPCA) can differ greatly in etiology and treatment from what is described by the American Heart Association advanced cardiac life support algorithms, which were largely developed for use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital cardiac arrest outside of the perioperative space. Specifically, there are several life-threatening causes of PPCA of which the management should be within the skill set of all anesthesiologists. However, previous research has demonstrated that continued review and training in the management of these scenarios is greatly needed and is also associated with improved delivery of care and outcomes during PPCA. There is a growing body of literature describing the incidence, causes, treatment, and outcomes of common causes of PPCA (eg, malignant hyperthermia, massive trauma, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity) and the need for a better awareness of these topics within the anesthesiology community at large. As noted in part 1 of this series, these events are always witnessed by a member of the perioperative team, frequently anticipated, and involve rescuer-providers with knowledge of the patient and the procedure they are undergoing or have had. Formulation of an appropriate differential diagnosis and rapid application of targeted interventions are critical for good patient outcome. Resuscitation algorithms that include the evaluation and management of common causes leading to cardiac in the perioperative setting are presented. Practicing anesthesiologists need a working knowledge of these algorithms to maximize good outcomes.

Cardiac arrest in the operating room and procedural areas has a different spectrum of causes (ie, hypovolemia, gas embolism, and hyperkalemia), and rapid and appropriate evaluation and management of these causes require modification of traditional cardiac arrest algorithms. There is a small but growing body of literature describing the incidence, causes, treatments, and outcomes of circulatory crisis and perioperative cardiac arrest. These events are almost always witnessed, frequently known, and involve rescuer providers with knowledge of the patient and their procedure. In this setting, there can be formulation of a differential diagnosis and a directed intervention that treats the likely underlying cause(s) of the crisis while concurrently managing the crisis itself. Management of cardiac arrest of the perioperative patient is predicated on expert opinion, physiologic rationale, and an understanding of the context in which these events occur. Resuscitation algorithms should consider the evaluation and management of these causes of crisis in the perioperative setting.