@article{22973,
  keywords = {Humans, Intensive Care Units, Critical Care, Fluid Therapy, Sepsis, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Nutritional Support, Respiration, Artificial, Resuscitation, Shock, Septic},
  author = {Rhodes Andrew and Myburgh J and Perner Anders and Angus Derek and Marshall John and Singer Mervyn and Machado Flavia and Alhazzani Waleed and Evans Laura and Levy Mitchell and Antonelli Massimo and Ferrer Ricard and Kumar Anand and Sevransky Jonathan and Sprung Charles and Nunnally Mark and Rochwerg Bram and Rubenfeld Gordon and Annane Djillali and Beale Richard and Bellinghan Geoffrey and Bernard Gordon and Chiche Jean-Daniel and Coopersmith Craig and De Backer Daniel and French Craig and Fujishima Seitaro and Gerlach Herwig and Hidalgo Jorge and Hollenberg Steven and Jones Alan and Karnad Dilip and Kleinpell Ruth and Koh Younsuck and Lisboa Thiago and Marini John and Mazuski John and McIntyre Lauralyn and McLean Anthony and Mehta Sangeeta and Moreno Rui and Navalesi Paolo and Nishida Osamu and Osborn Tiffany and Plunkett Colleen and Ranieri Marco and Schorr Christa and Seckel Maureen and Seymour Christopher and Shieh Lisa and Shukri Khalid and Simpson Steven and B Thompson Taylor and Townsend Sean and Van der Poll Thomas and Vincent Jean-Louis and W Wiersinga Joost and Zimmerman Janice and R Dellinger Phillip},
  title = {Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.},
  abstract = {<p>
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012."
</p>

<p>
<b>DESIGN: </b>A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.
</p>

<p>
<b>METHODS: </b>The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.
</p>

<p>
<b>RESULTS: </b>The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.
</p>

<p>
<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
</p>
},
  year = {2017},
  journal = {Crit Care Med},
  volume = {45},
  pages = {486-552},
  issn = {1530-0293},
  doi = {10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255},
  language = {eng},
}