Sepsis Bundles and Early Goal-Directed Therapy

Answer: Quick Answer: Sepsis bundles are standardized care protocols designed to improve early recognition and treatment of sepsis. The current Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) recommends a "1-hour bundle" (previously 3-hour and 6-hour bundles) emphasising immediate lactate measurement, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1 hour, and 30 mL/kg crystalloid resuscitation for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L. Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT), once cornerstone therapy, was largely abandoned after three landmark trials (ProCESS, ARISE, PROMISE) in 2014-2015 showed no mortality benefit compared to usual care. Current practice focuses on protocolized resuscitation with norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor, early antibiotics, and individualized fluid therapy rather than rigid CVP and ScvO2 targets.

CICM Exam Focus: Candidates must understand the historical evolution from EGDT (Rivers 2001) to modern bundle-based care, cite landmark trials with PMIDs, and discuss the evidence for specific interventions (fluid resuscitation, vasopressor selection, antibiotic timing, and controversial therapies like vitamin C, thiamine, hydrocortisone, and albumin).

Summary

---

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Historical Evolution

Early Definitions and Sepsis Management

Sepsis-1 (1991): First consensus definitions (ACCP/SCCM) defined sepsis as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) with suspected infection. SIRS required ≥2 of: temperature greater than 38°C or below 36°C, heart rate greater than 90/min, respiratory rate greater than 20/min or PaCO₂ below 32 mmHg, WBC greater than 12,000/µL or below 4,000/µL. This definition was criticized for low specificity (many non-infectious conditions cause SIRS).

Sepsis-2 (2001): Updated definitions refined diagnostic criteria but maintained SIRS framework. Emphasized PIRO model (Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ dysfunction) but not widely adopted clinically.

Sepsis-3 (2016): Paradigm shift abandoning SIRS in favor of organ dysfunction criteria. Published in JAMA by Seymour et al. ¹

• Definition: Life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection
• Organ dysfunction: Acute change in total SOFA score ≥2 points consequent to infection
• Septic shock: Subset of sepsis with profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities associated with greater mortality. Defined as sepsis with persisting hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg AND serum lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (greater than 18 mg/dL) despite adequate volume resuscitation
• qSOFA for bedside screening: ≥2 of: respiratory rate ≥22/min, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg

Sepsis-3 validation in external cohorts demonstrated superior predictive validity for mortality compared to SIRS (AUROC 0.74 vs 0.64). ¹

Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Origins

Founded in 2002 by ESICM, SCCM, and ISF with initial goal to reduce sepsis mortality by 25% over 5 years. Published first guidelines in 2004 with two key components:

1. Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) algorithm based on Rivers trial
2. Sepsis resuscitation bundle (6-hour) and management bundle (24-hour)

Bundle Evolution Timeline:

• begin immediately, complete within 3 hours | | 2018-2021 | Hour-1 bundle emphasis - all components within 1 hour for septic shock | | 2021-Present | SSC 2021 guidelines recommend initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid, antibiotics below 1 hour for shock |

The shift reflects evidence that earlier intervention improves outcomes, not just completion within arbitrary time windows. Each hour of delayed antibiotics increases mortality 4-8%. ² Each hour of delayed appropriate antibiotics in septic shock increases odds of hospital mortality by 7.6%. ³

---

Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT): The Rivers Era

The Rivers Trial (2001)

Rivers et al. "Early Goal-Directed Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock" published in NEJM 2001. ⁴

Design: Single-center RCT, 263 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock presenting to ED.

Intervention (EGDT): Protocolized 6-hour resuscitation targeting:

• Central venous pressure (CVP) 8-12 mmHg
• Mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg
• Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) ≥70%
• Urine output ≥0.5 mL/kg/hr

Control: Standard care (no specific targets)

Results:

• In-hospital mortality: 30.5% EGDT vs 46.5% control (absolute reduction 16%, NNT 6)
• 28-day mortality: 33.3% vs 49.2%

Intervention components:

1. Immediate central venous catheter placement (for CVP and ScvO₂ monitoring)
2. 500 mL crystalloid bolus then fluids to CVP 8-12 mmHg
3. Vasopressors (norepinephrine preferred) if MAP below 65 mmHg despite fluids
4. Blood transfusion if ScvO₂ below 70% and hematocrit below 30%
5. Dobutamine infusion if ScvO₂ below 70% after transfusion

Impact: Became standard of care worldwide. Incorporated into SSC bundles. Driven adoption of protocolized resuscitation, early recognition, invasive monitoring in ED.

EGDT Protocol Components Explained

CVP 8-12 mmHg:

Rationale: Estimate preload. Lower values (2-4 mmHg) suggest hypovolemia, higher values (greater than 12) suggest hypervolemia or RV failure. Target 8-12 aimed for optimal filling pressures.

Limitations (later recognized):

• Poor predictor of fluid responsiveness (only ~50% correlation with cardiac index changes)
• Influenced by intrathoracic pressure (ventilator settings, PEEP)
• Variable measurement technique
• Reflects pressure, not volume status

Current understanding: CVP abandoned as resuscitation target. Use dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness instead (passive leg raise, stroke volume variation, end-expiratory occlusion test).

ScvO₂ ≥70%:

Rationale: Global balance between oxygen delivery and consumption. ScvO₂ below 70% suggests tissue hypoxia despite apparent hemodynamic stability.

Normal values: ScvO₂ 70-80% (similar to mixed venous SvO₂ 65-75%)

Low ScvO₂ causes: Anemia, hypovolemia, cardiac dysfunction, increased metabolic demand, microcirculatory dysfunction

High ScvO₂ (greater than 80-90%): May indicate inability to extract oxygen (cytopathic hypoxia), mitochondrial dysfunction, or hyperdynamic state

Limitations:

• Regional tissue hypoxia can exist despite normal/low-normal ScvO₂ (shunting, microcirculatory heterogeneity)
• Influenced by cardiac output, Hb, SaO₂, VO₂
• Not routinely available (requires central venous catheter with saturation monitoring)

Current practice: Routine ScvO₂ monitoring not recommended. Use lactate clearance, clinical perfusion parameters, tissue perfusion markers (capillary refill, skin mottling, urine output).

Transfusion Threshold (Hct below 30%):

Rationale: Maintain oxygen-carrying capacity.

Current evidence: Restrictive strategy (Hb below 70 g/L or Hct below 21-22%) preferred for most ICU patients. Transfusion only for ischemic signs or ongoing bleeding. EGDT's liberal threshold was likely too aggressive.

Dobutamine for ScvO₂ below 70%:

Rationale: Increase cardiac output and oxygen delivery.

Current practice: Inotropes reserved for low cardiac output with evidence of hypoperfusion (elevated lactate, oliguria). Not routinely used for isolated low ScvO₂.

---

The EGDT Controversy: ProCESS, ARISE, PROMISE

Background

By 2010s, EGDT was standard of care but questioned for:

• Generalizability (single-center trial)
• Resource intensity (central line, ScvO₂ monitoring, blood transfusions, dobutamine)
• Potential harms (fluid overload, transfusion complications, unnecessary interventions)
• Evolving sepsis definitions and management

Three large multicenter RCTs published 2014-2015 comparing protocolized EGDT vs usual care.

ProCESS Trial (2014)

The Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) Trial - New England Journal of Medicine 2014. ⁵

Design: Multicenter (31 US academic EDs), 1,341 patients with septic shock.

Arms (3 groups):

1. Protocol-based EGDT (identical to Rivers protocol)
2. Protocol-based standard therapy (6-hour protocol without CVP, ScvO₂, transfusion targets - targeted fluids, antibiotics, vasopressors)
3. Usual care (no protocol)

Primary outcome: 60-day in-hospital mortality

Results:

• EGDT: 21.0% mortality
• Protocol-based standard therapy: 18.2% mortality
• Usual care: 18.9% mortality
• No significant difference between groups

Key findings:

• No mortality difference between EGDT and usual care
• No mortality difference between EGDT and protocol-based standard therapy
• Usual care achieved similar outcomes without invasive monitoring or aggressive targets
• EGDT group received more fluids (mean 5.4 L vs 2.8 L), more vasopressors (dobutamine use), more blood transfusions

Interpretation: EGDT's rigid protocol (CVP, ScvO₂, transfusion) not necessary. Protocolized care (early antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors) important, but specific targets (CVP 8-12, ScvO₂ ≥70) not required.

ARISE Trial (2014)

Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) Trial - New England Journal of Medicine 2014. ⁶

Design: Multicenter (51 centers in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland), 1,600 patients with early septic shock.

Arms (2 groups):

1. EGDT protocol (similar to Rivers but adapted for local practice)
2. Usual care

Primary outcome: 90-day all-cause mortality

Results:

• EGDT: 18.6% mortality
• Usual care: 18.8% mortality
• No significant difference (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.18)

Key findings:

• No mortality benefit from EGDT
• Similar organ support, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay
• EGDT group received more crystalloids (mean 2L vs 1.5L), more blood transfusions, more invasive monitoring (central lines 93% vs 67%)

Interpretation: Confirms ProCESS findings. EGDT not superior to usual care. Important to provide early resuscitation (fluids, antibiotics, vasopressors) but specific targets not required.

PROMISE Trial (2015)

Protocolised Management in Sepsis (PROMISE) Trial - Lancet 2015. ⁷

Design: Multicenter (56 NHS hospitals in England), 1,260 patients with early septic shock.

Arms (2 groups):

1. EGDT protocol (adapted Rivers protocol)
2. Usual care

Primary outcome: 90-day all-cause mortality

Results:

• EGDT: 29.5% mortality
• Usual care: 29.2% mortality
• No significant difference

Key findings:

• No mortality difference
• EGDT group received more fluids, more blood transfusions, more vasopressors
• Higher ICU admission rates with EGDT (but similar length of stay)

Meta-Analysis of EGDT Trials

Cochrane review 2020 (5 trials, 4,424 patients) including Rivers, ProCESS, ARISE, PROMISE, plus earlier smaller trials. ⁸

Findings:

• EGDT vs usual care: No difference in mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.07)
• EGDT vs protocolized standard care: No difference in mortality
• Subgroup analysis: Benefit only in Rivers trial (likely due to standard care deficiencies)
• Increased ICU admission rates with EGDT
• No difference in organ failure, hospital length of stay

Interpretation: EGDT not recommended for routine sepsis management. Important principles (early recognition, antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors) remain, but rigid invasive monitoring and targets abandoned.

Why Did EGDT Fail to Show Benefit?

Several hypotheses:

1. Standard of care improved: By 2010s, usual care included early antibiotics, aggressive fluid resuscitation, early vasopressors - similar to EGDT principles. Rivers trial's standard care was suboptimal (delayed antibiotics, less aggressive resuscitation).

2. Heterogeneity of septic shock: Not all patients benefit from CVP/ScvO₂-guided management. Some benefit from restrictive fluids, others from more aggressive resuscitation.

3. Harms of aggressive therapy:

   • Fluid overload: ProCESS and ARISE showed EGDT groups received more fluids without mortality benefit. Fluid overload associated with worse outcomes.
   • Blood transfusions: Liberal transfusion (Hct below 30%) without ischemic signs causes harm.
   • Invasive monitoring complications: Central lines have risks (pneumothorax, infection, arterial puncture).

4. Wrong targets: CVP poor predictor of volume status. ScvO₂ not routinely necessary. Normal lactate clearance and clinical perfusion may be sufficient.

5. Single-center bias: Rivers trial at single tertiary center with research team performing interventions may not be generalizable.

---

Current SSC Bundles: Components and Evidence

The "Hour-1 Bundle" (SSC 2021)

Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021 guidelines recommend initiating bundle components immediately, all completed within 1 hour for septic shock. ⁹

Components:

1. Measure lactate level

   • Rationale: Marker of tissue hypoperfusion, prognostic indicator
   • Evidence: Each 1 mmol/L increase associated with 2-15% increased mortality (varies by study)
   • Frequency: Repeat lactate if initial ≥4 mmol/L (2-4 hour intervals until clearing)

2. Obtain blood cultures before antibiotics

   • Rationale: Maximize pathogen identification before antibiotics reduce culture yield
   • Evidence: Blood cultures positive in 30-40% of septic shock cases
   • Two sets recommended (aerobic + anaerobic, from different sites) before antibiotic administration

3. Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics

   • Timing: Within 1 hour for septic shock, within 3 hours for sepsis without shock
   • Selection: Empiric broad-spectrum covering likely pathogens based on:
     • Suspected source (community vs hospital-acquired)
     • Local antibiogram
     • Patient risk factors (MDR organisms, prior colonization, recent antibiotics)
   • De-escalation: Narrow spectrum once pathogen identified (usually 48-72 hours)

   Timing evidence:

   • Kumar et al. 2006: Each hour delay in appropriate antibiotics increased mortality 7.6% in septic shock. ²
   • Seymour et al. 2017: Each hour delay in antibiotics and fluids associated with decreased survival (adjusted OR 0.85 per hour). ³

4. Start 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L

   • Rationale: Initial volume resuscitation to restore perfusion
   • Type: Balanced crystalloids (e.g., Plasma-Lyte, Hartmann's) preferred over normal saline (reduce AKI risk)
   • Caution: Individualize. No benefit (potential harm) in patients who are fluid non-responsive

5. Apply vasopressors if hypotensive during or after fluid resuscitation

   • First-line: Norepinephrine via central line
   • Target: MAP ≥65 mmHg
   • Consider higher MAP (80-85 mmHg) in patients with chronic hypertension (though evidence of benefit unclear)

6. Reassess volume status and tissue perfusion

   • Clinical perfusion parameters: Capillary refill time, skin mottling, urine output, mental status
   • Lactate clearance: Aim for greater than 10% decrease per hour (though evidence mixed)
   • Dynamic measures: Passive leg raise, stroke volume variation if available

3-Hour vs 6-Hour vs Hour-1 Bundle

Historical evolution:

Why the shift?

Evidence that earlier intervention improves outcomes. Not just completing tasks within timeframe, but starting immediately. For septic shock, antibiotics should be given within 1 hour of recognition, not 3 hours.

Compliance and outcomes:

• Levy et al. 2010: Hospital compliance with SSC resuscitation bundle associated with 25% reduction in mortality (25.4% to 19.0%). ¹⁰
• Each additional completed bundle element associated with decreased mortality
• However, confounding factors (hospitals with bundle compliance also have other quality improvements)

Critiques:

• Bundle elements not evidence-based individually (e.g., 30 mL/kg fluid bolus not supported by RCTs)
• Potential harms from rigid protocolization (fluid overload, unnecessary antibiotics)
• Compliance driven by quality metrics rather than patient-centered care
• May incentivize inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic use

---

Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis

Initial Fluid Resuscitation: 30 mL/kg Crystalloid

SSC 2021 recommendation: 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or lactate ≥4 mmol/L.

Evidence:

Limited direct RCT evidence. SSC guidelines extrapolate from:

1. Rivers EGDT trial: 30 mL/kg bolus part of protocol, showed mortality benefit (but overall protocol not beneficial in later trials). ⁴

2. FEAST trial (2011): Sub-Saharan Africa, children with severe febrile illness. ¹¹

   • Bolus fluids (20-40 mL/kg) associated with increased mortality vs no bolus
   • 90-day mortality: 10.6% (albumin), 10.5% (saline), 7.3% (control)
   • Suggests harm from aggressive fluid resuscitation in resource-limited setting

3. CLASSIC trial (2022): ICU patients with septic shock. ¹²

   • Restrictive fluid strategy (no initial bolus) vs standard care (30 mL/kg initial bolus)
   • 90-day mortality: 42.3% (restrictive) vs 42.1% (standard)
   • No mortality difference, restrictive group received fewer fluids, less organ support
   • Suggests no benefit from initial 30 mL/kg bolus in ICU setting (patients already resuscitated in ED)

4. CLOVERS trial (ongoing): Comparing liberal (30 mL/kg bolus then fluids to CVP 8-12) vs restrictive (no initial bolus, fluids only for hypoperfusion) strategy. Results pending.

Interpretation:

• 30 mL/kg initial bolus not strongly evidence-based based on RCTs
• May cause harm in some patients (fluid overload, pulmonary edema, abdominal compartment syndrome)
• Should be individualized based on clinical assessment
• Avoid in patients with clear signs of fluid overload (pulmonary edema, ARDS, CKD with volume overload)

Crystalloid Choice: Balanced vs Normal Saline

Normal Saline (0.9% NaCl):

• Hyperchloremic (Cl⁻ 154 mmol/L vs plasma 98-107 mmol/L)
• May cause hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis
• Associated with AKI in some studies

Balanced crystalloids: Plasma-Lyte, Hartmann's, Lactated Ringer's

• Physiologic chloride concentration (~98-110 mmol/L)
• Less acid-base disturbance
• May reduce AKI incidence

Evidence:

1. SMART trial (2018): 15,802 ICU patients randomized to balanced crystalloids vs normal saline. ¹³

   • Primary outcome: Major adverse kidney events within 30 days (death, new renal replacement therapy, persistent renal dysfunction)
   • Results: 14.3% (balanced) vs 15.4% (saline) - statistically significant 1% absolute reduction
   • NNT 100 to prevent one major kidney event
   • Subgroup analysis: Benefit primarily in sepsis patients (15.6% vs 18.1%)

2. SALT-ED trial (2018): 13,347 non-ICU ED patients randomized to balanced crystalloids vs normal saline. ¹⁴

   • Primary outcome: Hospital-free days (days alive and out of hospital at 28 days)
   • No difference: 25 days (balanced) vs 25 days (saline)
   • Secondary outcomes: No difference in AKI, mortality
   • Interpretation: Balanced crystalloids not harmful, but benefit less clear in less sick patients

3. BaSICS trial (2021): 10,520 ICU patients (including sepsis) randomized to balanced crystalloids vs normal saline. ¹⁵

   • Primary outcome: 90-day mortality
   • Results: 26.4% (balanced) vs 27.2% (saline) - no significant difference
   • Conflict with SMART trial - possible differences in patient populations

Interpretation:

• Balanced crystalloids likely beneficial in ICU patients with sepsis (SMART trial subgroup)
• Evidence strongest for reducing AKI incidence
• Normal saline acceptable if balanced crystalloids unavailable
• Consider patient-specific factors (e.g., hyperkalemia - avoid potassium-containing solutions)

Ongoing Fluid Resuscitation: Individualized Approach

After initial 30 mL/kg bolus (or if no bolus given), fluid strategy should be individualized:

When to give more fluids:

1. Evidence of hypovolemia:

   • Hypotension with low CVP (if available) but poor predictor
   • Better: Dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness
     • Passive leg raise: greater than 10% increase in stroke volume predicts fluid responsiveness (sensitivity 85-95%, specificity 90-95%)
     • Stroke volume variation: greater than 10-13% in mechanically ventilated patients without spontaneous breathing or arrhythmia
     • End-expiratory occlusion test: In mechanically ventilated patients

2. Evidence of tissue hypoperfusion:

   • Lactate not clearing or rising
   • Poor urine output (below 0.5 mL/kg/hr) despite adequate MAP
   • Capillary refill time greater than 3 seconds
   • Skin mottling
   • Altered mental status from hypoperfusion

3. Low cardiac output (if available): Cardiac index below 2.2 L/min/m², cold shock profile

When to stop fluid resuscitation:

1. Fluid non-responsive: No improvement in hemodynamics after fluid challenge
2. Evidence of fluid overload:
   • Pulmonary edema (crackles, hypoxia, CXR findings)
   • Rising CVP (though limited value)
   • Abdominal compartment syndrome (bladder pressure greater than 20 mmHg)
   • Oliguria in setting of high CVP (consider venous congestion)
3. Clinical improvement: MAP target achieved, lactate clearing, urine output improving

Fluid challenge technique:

• Amount: 250-500 mL crystalloid bolus
• Duration: 15-30 minutes (slower in ARDS, severe cardiac dysfunction)
• Assessment: Repeat hemodynamics (BP, HR, CVP if available) after challenge
• Continue: If hemodynamic improvement and signs of hypoperfusion persist
• Stop: No improvement or signs of fluid overload

Fluid avoidance strategies:

• Early vasopressors: Start norepinephrine early to maintain MAP, avoid excessive fluids
• Small-volume resuscitation: Titrate to effect, avoid blind large boluses
• Consider diuretics: In fluid overload states (e.g., CRF, oliguria with high CVP)
• Consider renal replacement therapy: In refractory fluid overload

Albumin in Sepsis

Rationale: Oncotic agent, reduces interstitial edema, may improve hemodynamics compared to crystalloids.

SAFE trial (2004): 6,997 ICU patients randomized to 4% albumin vs normal saline. ¹⁶

Primary outcome: 28-day mortality

Results:

• Overall: 20.9% (albumin) vs 21.1% (saline) - no difference
• Sepsis subgroup: 30.7% (albumin) vs 35.3% (saline) - trend toward benefit (not statistically significant in subgroup analysis, underpowered)

SAFE-Sepsis analysis:

Patients with severe sepsis from SAFE trial had:

• Lower mortality with albumin (30.7% vs 35.3%, p=0.09 - trend only)
• Fewer ventilator-free days, but no difference in ICU length of stay

SEP-1 trial (2022): Large multicenter RCT of albumin vs saline in sepsis resuscitation. ¹⁷

Design: 3,212 patients with sepsis, randomized to 20% albumin vs normal saline for initial resuscitation (up to 72 hours).

Primary outcome: 90-day mortality

Results:

• Albumin: 32.3% mortality
• Saline: 34.2% mortality
• No significant difference (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.05)

Interpretation:

• Albumin not recommended for routine use in sepsis resuscitation
• May be considered in:
  • Patients requiring large-volume resuscitation (to reduce tissue edema)
  • Hypoalbuminemia (below 20 g/L) with suspected intravascular hypovolemia
  • Patients with contraindication to large-volume crystalloids (e.g., severe pulmonary edema)
• Balanced crystalloids preferred to normal saline

---

Vasopressors and Inotropes in Sepsis

First-line: Norepinephrine

Mechanism: Potent α1 agonist with weak β1 activity. Increases systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and modestly increases cardiac output.

Dosing: 0.01-3.0 µg/kg/min via central line (peripheral acceptable as temporary bridge if central line delayed).

Evidence:

SOAP II trial (2010): 1,679 patients with shock (77% septic shock). ¹⁸

Arms: Norepinephrine vs dopamine

Primary outcome: 28-day mortality

Results:

• Overall mortality: 42.7% (norepinephrine) vs 52.5% (dopamine) - no overall significant difference
• Subgroup analysis: In septic shock, norepinephrine superior (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-1.00) - trend toward benefit

Safety:

• Arrhythmias: 12.4% (norepinephrine) vs 24.1% (dopamine) - significantly lower with norepinephrine
• Particularly atrial fibrillation, tachyarrhythmias

Interpretation: Norepinephrine preferred first-line due to better safety profile (fewer arrhythmias) and trend toward mortality benefit in sepsis.

Second-line: Vasopressin

Mechanism: V1 receptor agonist (vasoconstriction). Effects independent of catecholamine receptors, useful in catecholamine-refractory shock.

Dosing: 0.03 U/min (fixed dose, not titrated to effect). May increase to 0.04-0.06 U/min in refractory shock (off-label, limited evidence).

Evidence:

VANISH trial (2016): 409 patients with septic shock requiring norepinephrine greater than 0.25 µg/kg/min. ¹⁹

Arms: Vasopressin 0.03 U/min + norepinephrine vs norepinephrine alone

Primary outcome: Kidney failure-free days

Results:

• No difference in primary outcome (57 days both groups)
• Mortality trend: 36% (vasopressin) vs 44% (norepinephrine) - not statistically significant (underpowered)

VASST trial (2008): 778 patients with septic shock. ²⁰

Arms: Low-dose vasopressin (0.01-0.03 U/min) vs norepinephrine

Primary outcome: 28-day mortality

Results:

• Overall: 35.4% (vasopressin) vs 39.3% (norepinephrine) - no difference
• Subgroup analysis: Benefit in less severe septic shock (norepinephrine dose below 15 µg/min)

Interpretation:

• Vasopressin recommended as second-line agent when norepinephrine dose greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min
• Fixed low dose (0.03 U/min) recommended (not titrated)
• May reduce norepinephrine requirements
• Consider earlier use in patients with relative vasopressin deficiency (prolonged septic shock)

Third-line: Dobutamine, Epinephrine

Dobutamine (inotrope):

Mechanism: β1 agonist (increases cardiac contractility), weak β2 (vasodilation). Minimal α activity.

Indication:

• Low cardiac output with evidence of hypoperfusion
• Persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate MAP (greater than 65 mmHg) and adequate intravascular volume

Evidence:

Limited RCT evidence. SSC guidelines recommend:

• Consider in patients with myocardial dysfunction (low cardiac output, elevated cardiac filling pressures, low ScvO₂ if measured)
• Start at 2-5 µg/kg/min, titrate to effect (up to 20 µg/kg/min)
• Avoid if vasopressor requirements high (risk of excessive vasodilation worsening hypotension)

Epinephrine (vasopressor + inotrope):

Mechanism: α and β agonist. Potent vasopressor and inotrope.

Indication:

• Refractory septic shock (norepinephrine + vasopressin insufficient)
• Alternative to norepinephrine + dobutamine combination

Evidence:

Small RCTs comparing epinephrine vs norepinephrine + dobutamine:

• Similar hemodynamic effects
• Higher lactate with epinephrine (possibly due to increased metabolic demand)
• More arrhythmias
• Not recommended as first or second-line

Other agents:

Dopamine: Replaced by norepinephrine due to higher arrhythmia risk (SOAP II trial). May still be used in patients with bradycardia and low cardiac output (β1 effect).

Phenylephrine: Pure α1 agonist. Consider in patients with:

• Severe tachyarrhythmias (dopamine/norepinephrine-induced)
• Low SVR with adequate cardiac output

Avoid in patients with low cardiac output (no inotropic effect, may decrease stroke volume due to increased afterload).

---

Adjunctive Therapies in Sepsis

Corticosteroids

Rationale: Relative adrenal insufficiency in septic shock, anti-inflammatory effects, catecholamine potentiation.

Evidence:

CORTICUS trial (2008): 499 patients with septic shock. ²¹

Arms: Hydrocortisone 50 mg IV q6h for 5 days (then taper) vs placebo

Primary outcome: 28-day mortality

Results:

• 34.3% (hydrocortisone) vs 31.5% (placebo) - no difference
• Faster shock reversal with hydrocortisone (median 3 vs 5 days)
• More hyperglycemia, hypernatremia with hydrocortisone

Annane et al. 2002: 299 patients with septic shock and non-responders to corticotropin stimulation test. ²²

Arms: Hydrocortisone 50 mg q6h + fludrocortisone 50 µg daily for 7 days vs placebo

Results:

• Significant mortality reduction: 53% (placebo) vs 63% (steroids) in non-responders
• Benefit only in non-responders (cortisol increase below 9 µg/dL after ACTH)

Current SSC 2021 guidelines:

• Weak recommendation for low-dose hydrocortisone (200 mg/day) in patients with refractory septic shock
• Refractory defined as requiring vasopressors greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min norepinephrine
• No need for ACTH stimulation test (not reliable)
• Taper over 5-7 days once vasopressor requirement decreases

Controversy:

ADRENAL trial (2018): 3,800 patients with septic shock. ²³

Arms: Hydrocortisone 200 mg IV daily for 7 days vs placebo

Primary outcome: 90-day mortality

Results:

• 27.9% (hydrocortisone) vs 28.8% (placebo) - no difference
• Faster shock resolution (3 vs 4 days)
• Fewer days on mechanical ventilation, ICU stay

APROCCHSS trial (2018): 1,241 patients with septic shock. ²⁴

Arms: Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs placebo

Primary outcome: 90-day mortality

Results:

• 43.0% (steroids) vs 49.1% (placebo) - significant mortality reduction
• Benefit more pronounced in patients without baseline steroids

Interpretation:

• Mixed evidence - ADRENAL (no mortality benefit) vs APROCCHSS (mortality benefit)
• Possible reasons for differences:
  • ADRENAL included less severe shock (lower vasopressor requirement)
  • APROCCHSS included fludrocortisone (mineralocorticoid)
  • Different study populations
• SSC 2021 weak recommendation for steroids in refractory shock (vasopressor requirement greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min)

Vitamin C, Thiamine, Hydrocortisone (HAT Therapy)

Rationale:

• Vitamin C: Antioxidant, may improve microcirculation, reduce endothelial dysfunction
• Thiamine: Cofactor in aerobic metabolism, may correct thiamine deficiency in sepsis
• Hydrocortisone: See above
• Synergy: Vitamin C acts as cofactor for cortisol synthesis

Marik et al. 2017: Before-after study showing dramatic mortality reduction from 40.4% to 8.5% using HAT protocol. ²⁵

This non-randomized study sparked widespread interest and implementation before robust RCT evidence.

RCTs:

VITAMINS trial (2020): 216 patients with septic shock. ²⁶

Arms: IV vitamin C (1.5 g q6h) + hydrocortisone (50 mg q6h) + thiamine (200 mg q12h) vs hydrocortisone alone

Primary outcome: Time alive and free of vasopressors at day 7

Results:

• No difference in primary outcome (122.1 hours HAT vs 124.6 hours control)
• 90-day mortality: 34.5% (HAT) vs 30.9% (control) - no difference

ACTS trial (2022): 202 patients with septic shock. ²⁷

Arms: HAT therapy vs control (no steroids specified)

Primary outcome: Composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction

Results:

• 38.5% (HAT) vs 34.3% (control) - no difference

LOVIT trial (2022): 1,561 patients with sepsis and organ dysfunction. ²⁸

Arms: Vitamin C alone vs placebo (no steroids, thiamine in protocol)

Primary outcome: Composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction

Results:

• 32.5% (vitamin C) vs 30.1% (placebo) - no difference
• Harm signal: Higher mortality in vitamin C group (35.4% vs 31.6%)
• Subgroup analysis: Harm primarily in patients receiving vitamin C with concomitant thiamine

Interpretation:

• HAT therapy NOT recommended for routine use in septic shock
• Evidence shows no mortality benefit
• Possible harm from vitamin C alone (LOVIT trial)
• Marik's initial dramatic benefit likely due to other factors (improved overall care, selection bias)
• Hydrocortisone still recommended in refractory shock (see above)

Vitamin C for Sepsis without HAT

Multiple meta-analyses (2020-2022): Consistently show no mortality benefit from vitamin C in sepsis. ²⁹

• Some studies show reduced organ failure, shorter ICU stay
• Conflicting evidence on lactate clearance
• Not recommended outside RCT settings

Vitamin D in Sepsis

Rationale: High prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in critically ill, immunomodulatory effects.

VIOLET trial (2019): 1,360 ICU patients with vitamin D deficiency (≤20 ng/mL). ³⁰

Arms: High-dose vitamin D (540,000 IU single dose) vs placebo

Primary outcome: 90-day mortality

Results:

• 28.6% (vitamin D) vs 28.1% (placebo) - no difference
• No difference in hospital length of stay, ICU-free days, ventilator-free days

Interpretation: Vitamin D supplementation not recommended for routine use in ICU patients or sepsis.

Aspirin in Sepsis

Rationale: Antiplatelet, anti-inflammatory, may reduce microthrombi in sepsis-induced coagulopathy.

ASPEN trial (ongoing): RCT of aspirin vs placebo in sepsis (results pending).

Current evidence: Meta-analyses of small studies show mixed results. Not recommended outside RCT.

Statins in Sepsis

Rationale: Anti-inflammatory, endothelial protective effects.

Meta-analyses: No mortality benefit from statins in sepsis. ³¹

Interpretation: Continue statins if patient already on them for chronic indications. Do not start statins specifically for sepsis.

Blood Transfusion in Sepsis

Rationale: Maintain oxygen-carrying capacity, correct anemia causing tissue hypoxia.

TRISS trial (2014): 998 patients with septic shock. ³²

Arms: Restrictive transfusion (Hb below 70 g/L) vs liberal transfusion (Hb below 90 g/L)

Primary outcome: 90-day mortality

Results:

• 43% (restrictive) vs 45% (liberal) - no difference
• No difference in ischemic events
• Restrictive group received fewer transfusions (median 1 vs 4 units)

Interpretation:

• Restrictive transfusion threshold (Hb below 70 g/L) recommended in sepsis

• Consider higher threshold (Hb below 80 g/L) in:

  • Myocardial ischemia
  • Ongoing bleeding
  • Chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure

• Transfuse one unit at a time, reassess after each unit

---

Antibiotic Management in Sepsis

Timing: Antibiotics Within 1 Hour

Kumar et al. 2006: Retrospective analysis of 2,731 septic shock patients. ²

Findings:

• Median time to effective antibiotics: 6 hours
• Each hour delay increased mortality 7.6%
• Survival: 80% (antibiotics within 1 hour) vs below 50% (antibiotics greater than 6 hours)

Ferré et al. 2018: Meta-analysis of antibiotic timing in sepsis. ³³

Findings:

• Each hour delay associated with increased mortality (adjusted OR 1.04-1.08)
• Benefit primarily in septic shock
• Less clear benefit in sepsis without shock

Current guidelines:

• Septic shock: Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1 hour of recognition
• Sepsis without shock: Administer antibiotics within 3 hours of recognition
• Start immediately after obtaining blood cultures (do not delay antibiotics for cultures)

Empiric Antibiotic Selection

Principles:

1. Broad-spectrum initially, then de-escalate based on cultures
2. Cover likely pathogens based on:
   • Suspected source (community vs hospital-acquired)
   • Patient risk factors (MDR organisms, prior colonization)
   • Local antibiogram

Common regimens:

Community-acquired sepsis:

• Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q8h OR
• Ceftriaxone 2 g IV daily + vancomycin (if MRSA risk)

Hospital-acquired sepsis (high MDR risk):

• Piperacillin-tazobactam + vancomycin OR
• Meropenem 1 g IV q8h + vancomycin

MRSA coverage (if risk): Vancomycin 15-20 mg/kg IV q8-12h (target trough 15-20 mg/L) OR linezolid 600 mg IV q12h

Pseudomonas coverage (if risk): Piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, cefepime, aztreonam (if penicillin allergy)

ESBL coverage: Carbapenem (meropenem)

Duration:

• 7-10 days for most infections
• Longer (14-21 days) for:
  • Osteomyelitis
  • Endocarditis
  • Pseudomonas infections
  • Immunocompromised hosts
• Shorter (5-7 days) for uncomplicated infections with rapid clinical response

De-escalation:

• Narrow spectrum once pathogen identified (usually 48-72 hours)
• Stop antibiotics if cultures negative and alternative diagnosis confirmed

Source Control

Definition: Physical measures to eliminate source of infection (drainage, debridement, device removal).

Evidence:

• Source control critical in infections with:
  • Intra-abdominal abscess
  • Empyema
  • Infected devices (central lines, prosthetic joints)
  • Necrotizing soft tissue infection
• Delayed source control associated with increased mortality

Timing: Within 12 hours of recognition for unstable patients. ³⁴

---

Outcomes and Prognostication in Sepsis

Mortality

Overall sepsis mortality:

• 15-20% for sepsis
• 30-50% for septic shock

Predictors of mortality:

1. Lactate greater than 4 mmol/L: Mortality 30-40%
2. qSOFA score ≥2: 2-3x increased mortality
3. SOFA score ≥2: Mortality increases with each point
4. Older age: Higher mortality, especially greater than 75 years
5. Immunocompromise: Transplant, chemotherapy, HIV
6. Co-morbidities: Liver disease, heart failure, CKD
7. Delayed antibiotics: Each hour delay increases mortality 4-8%

Long-Term Outcomes

Post-sepsis syndrome:

• Cognitive dysfunction (memory, attention, executive function)
• Physical weakness, functional decline
• Psychological sequelae (PTSD, depression, anxiety)
• Increased 1-year mortality (up to 50% of sepsis survivors die within 1 year)

Rehabilitation needs:

• Physical therapy for muscle weakness
• Cognitive rehabilitation for brain dysfunction
• Psychological support for PTSD/depression
• Social support for functional limitations

---

Quality Improvement: Bundle Compliance

Measuring Compliance

Bundle completion rate:

• Percentage of patients who receive all bundle components within specified timeframe
• All-or-nothing measurement (patient counted only if all components completed)

Rationale: Evidence suggests each additional completed element improves outcomes. Levy et al. 2010 showed each additional bundle element associated with decreased mortality. ¹⁰

Improving Compliance

Strategies:

1. Electronic health record (EHR) order sets: Pre-populated sepsis orders
2. Clinical decision support: Automated alerts for patients meeting sepsis criteria
3. Multidisciplinary teams: Rapid response teams, sepsis teams
4. Education: Staff training on sepsis recognition and bundle implementation
5. Audit and feedback: Regular monitoring of compliance, feedback to teams
6. Leadership engagement: Administrative support for quality improvement initiatives

Challenges

1. Sepsis recognition: Identifying patients early, especially non-obvious presentations
2. Resource constraints: Limited availability of central lines, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics
3. Diagnostic uncertainty: Sepsis vs non-infectious SIRS, fear of over-treatment
4. Time pressure: Multiple competing priorities in ED/ICU
5. Documentation burden: Accurate timing documentation for compliance measurement

---

Australian Context: ANZICS Guidelines

ANZICS Sepsis Guidelines (2020)

Key recommendations:

1. Antibiotics: Administer within 1 hour for septic shock. Use local antibiogram for empiric selection.
2. Fluid resuscitation: Initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L. Individualize thereafter. Prefer balanced crystalloids.
3. Vasopressors: Norepinephrine first-line via central line. Target MAP ≥65 mmHg. Add vasopressin if norepinephrine greater than 0.25 µg/kg/min.
4. Corticosteroids: Consider low-dose hydrocortisone in refractory septic shock (vasopressor requirement greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min).
5. Source control: Within 12 hours for unstable patients.
6. Monitoring: Lactate measurement at presentation and 2-4 hour intervals if initially elevated.

Indigenous Health Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations:

• Higher sepsis incidence and mortality compared to non-Indigenous Australians
• Risk factors:
  • Higher rates of chronic diseases (diabetes, CKD, cardiovascular disease)
  • Higher prevalence of infectious diseases (pneumonia, skin infections, rheumatic heart disease)
  • Geographic isolation (remote communities, delayed presentation)
  • Socioeconomic disadvantage (overcrowding, poor sanitation)
• Cultural safety considerations:
  • Involve Aboriginal Health Workers (AHWs) and Aboriginal Liaison Officers (ALOs)
  • Family-centred care (extended family decision-making)
  • Respect for cultural practices (men's/women's business, sorry business)
  • Communication considerations (language barriers, health literacy)
  • Avoid medical jargon, use plain language
  • Consider traditional healing practices alongside Western medicine

Māori health (New Zealand):

• Higher sepsis incidence and mortality
• Risk factors:
  • Higher rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease
  • Socioeconomic deprivation
  • Housing conditions (overcrowding, poor insulation)
• Cultural safety:
  • Whānau (family) involvement in care decisions
  • "Tikanga (cultural protocols): Manaakitanga (care), aroha (compassion), whakawhanaungatanga (relationships)"
  • Māori Health Workers (Kaitiaki) involvement
  • Consider tapu (sacred) protocols around body, blood, death
  • Use of te reo Māori where possible

Remote and Rural Considerations

RFDS (Royal Flying Doctor Service):

• Retrieval of septic patients from remote communities to tertiary centers
• Challenges:
  • Limited resources in remote clinics (no ICU, limited antibiotic options, no vasopressors)
  • Prolonged transfer times (delayed definitive care)
  • Communication challenges (telemedicine)
• Strategies:
  • Early recognition and stabilization in remote clinic
  • Early initiation of antibiotics and fluids
  • Early activation of RFDS retrieval
  • Teleconsultation with tertiary ICU specialists

Resource limitations:

• Limited antibiotic options in remote settings (may lack broad-spectrum agents)
• No central line access (vasopressors via peripheral line temporarily)
• No invasive monitoring (CVP, ScvO₂ unavailable - rely on clinical assessment)
• Laboratory delays (point-of-care lactate, blood cultures may need to be sent to referral hospital)

Telemedicine:

• Teleconsultation with tertiary ICU specialists
• Teleradiology for imaging
• Tele-ultrasound for volume assessment (if available)
• Real-time guidance for resuscitation

---

Sepsis in Special Populations

Paediatric Sepsis

Definitions: Pediatric-specific SOFA score (pSOFA), adapted qSOFA for children.

Key differences:

• Higher heart rates and respiratory rates at baseline
• Different normal lactate values (higher in neonates)
• Vasopressor dosing based on weight
• Antibiotic selection (avoid certain antibiotics in children)

Evidence:

• Similar principles to adult sepsis (early recognition, antibiotics, fluids)
• Fluid volumes based on weight (20 mL/kg bolus in children)
• Norepinephrine first-line vasopressor (dopamine less used now)

Elderly Sepsis

Challenges:

• Atypical presentations (absence of fever, altered mental status may be only sign)
• Higher mortality (30-50% in septic shock)
• More comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, CKD, COPD)
• Polypharmacy (drug interactions, altered antibiotic metabolism)

Management considerations:

• Higher index of suspicion for sepsis in elderly with subtle changes
• More cautious fluid resuscitation (higher risk of fluid overload)
• Lower threshold for ICU admission
• Consider goals of care, advance directives

Immunocompromised Sepsis

Populations:

• Transplant recipients (solid organ, hematopoietic stem cell)
• Chemotherapy patients
• HIV/AIDS
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• Biologic therapy (anti-TNF, rituximab)

Challenges:

• Higher sepsis incidence (immunosuppression)
• Atypical pathogens (opportunistic infections: PJP, CMV, fungal)
• Higher mortality
• Altered immune response (blunted inflammatory markers, may not mount fever)

Management:

• Broader antibiotic coverage (include anti-pseudomonal, antifungal coverage in high-risk)
• Empiric antifungal coverage (if febrile neutropenia, prolonged symptoms)
• Earlier ICU admission
• Consider opportunistic infections (PJP, CMV, HSV) in differential diagnosis

---

Key Clinical Pearls

1. EGDT is dead: ProCESS, ARISE, PROMISE showed no mortality benefit vs usual care. Rigid CVP, ScvO₂, transfusion targets abandoned.

2. Early antibiotics are critical: Administer within 1 hour for septic shock. Each hour delay increases mortality 4-8%.

3. Lactate is prognostic, not a treatment target: Use lactate for risk stratification and monitoring. Aim for lactate clearance (greater than 10% per hour) but not an absolute target.

4. Fluid resuscitation should be individualized: Initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L, but thereafter titrate to clinical response. Avoid blind large-volume resuscitation.

5. Norepinephrine first-line: Start norepinephrine early to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg. Add vasopressin as second-line.

6. Balanced crystalloids preferred over normal saline: Evidence (SMART trial) suggests reduced AKI incidence with balanced solutions.

7. Restrictive transfusion: Hb below 70 g/L threshold for most patients. Higher threshold only for ischemic complications.

8. HAT therapy (vitamin C, thiamine, hydrocortisone) NOT recommended: RCTs (VITAMINS, LOVIT) show no mortality benefit, possible harm.

9. Steroids in refractory shock: Weak recommendation for low-dose hydrocortisone when norepinephrine dose greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min. Evidence mixed (ADRENAL vs APROCCHSS).

10. Source control is critical: For intra-abdominal infections, empyema, necrotizing soft tissue infections, definitive drainage/debridement within 12 hours.

---

Viva Scenarios

Viva 1: Sepsis Bundle Implementation and EGDT Controversy

Examiner: You have a 65-year-old patient admitted to ICU with community-acquired pneumonia and septic shock. How would you manage their initial resuscitation?

Candidate: I would assess ABCDEs, ensure adequate airway and breathing. For circulation, I would:

1. Obtain immediate point-of-care lactate and send blood cultures before antibiotics
2. Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1 hour - in this case, likely piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV
3. Give 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus for hypotension (if present) - approximately 2 liters for a 70 kg patient. I would prefer a balanced crystalloid like Plasma-Lyte over normal saline
4. Start norepinephrine via central line to target MAP ≥65 mmHg if hypotension persists after fluid bolus
5. Reassess volume status and tissue perfusion - checking lactate clearance, urine output, capillary refill time, skin mottling
6. If norepinephrine requirement increases beyond 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min, I would add vasopressin 0.03 U/min

Examiner: What is the evidence for the 30 mL/kg fluid bolus?

Candidate: The evidence is limited. The SSC 2021 guidelines recommend this based on historical EGDT protocols and extrapolation from other trials. The Rivers 2001 EGDT trial included a 30 mL/kg bolus as part of the protocol and showed mortality benefit, but later multicenter trials (ProCESS 2014, ARISE 2014, PROMISE 2015) found no mortality benefit for the overall EGDT protocol compared to usual care.

More recently, the CLASSIC 2022 trial specifically compared a restrictive fluid strategy (no initial bolus) vs standard care (30 mL/kg bolus) in ICU patients with septic shock and found no mortality difference, with the restrictive group receiving fewer fluids and less organ support.

Additionally, the FEAST 2011 trial in children with severe febrile illness showed that aggressive fluid resuscitation actually increased mortality compared to no bolus.

Examiner: So should we still use the 30 mL/kg bolus?

Candidate: Current SSC guidelines still recommend 30 mL/kg for patients with septic shock or lactate ≥4 mmol/L. However, I would individualize this approach. I would give the bolus to patients with clear hypotension and signs of hypovolemia or severe tissue hypoperfusion (lactate ≥4, oliguria, poor capillary refill). I would avoid or reduce the bolus in patients with evidence of fluid overload (pulmonary edema, ARDS, CKD), or who are already volume-resuscitated.

Examiner: What are the components of the current SSC bundle?

Candidate: The SSC 2021 guidelines recommend a "1-hour bundle" (though in practice, components are initiated immediately but completed within 3 hours):

1. Measure lactate
2. Obtain blood cultures before antibiotics
3. Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics (within 1 hour for septic shock, 3 hours for sepsis without shock)
4. Start 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L
5. Apply vasopressors if hypotensive during or after fluid resuscitation (norepinephrine first-line, target MAP ≥65 mmHg)
6. Reassess volume status and tissue perfusion

Examiner: Why is there a 1-hour time limit for antibiotics?

Candidate: The evidence is strong that earlier antibiotics improve outcomes, particularly in septic shock. Kumar et al. 2006 showed each hour delay in effective antibiotics increased mortality by 7.6% in septic shock. Similarly, Seymour et al. 2017 found each hour delay in antibiotics and fluids was associated with decreased survival (adjusted OR 0.85 per hour). For sepsis without shock, the benefit is less clear, hence the 3-hour time limit.

Examiner: What was the Rivers 2001 EGDT protocol and why is it no longer recommended?

Candidate: The Rivers trial implemented a 6-hour protocolized resuscitation targeting:

1. CVP 8-12 mmHg
2. MAP ≥65 mmHg
3. ScvO₂ ≥70%
4. Urine output ≥0.5 mL/kg/hr

To achieve these targets, the protocol used:

• Immediate central venous catheter placement
• 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus
• Vasopressors (norepinephrine) for MAP below 65
• Blood transfusion if ScvO₂ below 70% and Hct below 30%
• Dobutamine infusion if ScvO₂ below 70% after transfusion

The trial showed a 16% absolute mortality reduction (NNT 6) compared to usual care.

EGDT is no longer recommended because three large multicenter RCTs (ProCESS 2014, ARISE 2014, PROMISE 2015) failed to show any mortality benefit compared to usual care. The usual care in these trials had already incorporated early antibiotics, fluids, and vasopressors - the important principles from EGDT - without the rigid invasive monitoring and targets.

Additionally, the specific targets in EGDT have been shown to be problematic:

• CVP is a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness
• ScvO₂ monitoring is not routinely necessary
• Liberal transfusion (Hct below 30%) is associated with harm

Examiner: What are the key learning points from the EGDT controversy?

Candidate: Several important points:

1. Single-center trials may not be generalizable: The benefit seen in Rivers was likely due to the study setting and team (dedicated research team performing interventions) rather than the protocol itself
2. Standard of care evolves: By the time ProCESS/ARISE/PROMISE were conducted (2010s), usual care had improved significantly compared to Rivers (2001). Early antibiotics, fluids, and vasopressors were already standard in most centers
3. Protocolized care matters, but rigid targets do not: Early recognition, antibiotics, fluids, and vasopressors are critical. But we don't need to target specific CVP or ScvO₂ values
4. Harms of aggressive therapy: The EGDT group in ProCESS and ARISE received more fluids, more blood transfusions, and more invasive monitoring without mortality benefit. This highlights the potential for harm from overly aggressive resuscitation
5. Individualized patient care: Not all patients benefit from the same approach. Some need more fluids, others need less. We should tailor management based on clinical response

Examiner: How would you assess volume status in a patient with septic shock?

Candidate: I would use a combination of static and dynamic measures:

Static measures (limited value):

• CVP (if available) - though I recognize this is a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness
• Clinical assessment: JVP, peripheral edema, pulmonary edema (crackles, hypoxia)
• IVC ultrasound: Collapsibility index (more useful in spontaneously breathing patients)
• Lung ultrasound: B-lines for pulmonary edema

Dynamic measures (superior for predicting fluid responsiveness):

• Passive leg raise: greater than 10% increase in stroke volume (sensitivity 85-95%, specificity 90-95%). I would measure with arterial line, echocardiography, or non-invasive cardiac output monitor
• Stroke volume variation: greater than 10-13% in mechanically ventilated patients without spontaneous breathing or arrhythmias
• End-expiratory occlusion test: In mechanically ventilated patients, hold ventilation at end-expiration for 15 seconds

Clinical perfusion parameters:

• Lactate clearance: greater than 10% decrease per hour
• Capillary refill time: greater than 3 seconds suggests hypoperfusion
• Skin mottling: Presence suggests poor perfusion
• Urine output: below 0.5 mL/kg/hr suggests renal hypoperfusion

I would combine these measures to assess volume status and determine whether to give more fluids or stop resuscitation. A patient with improving perfusion parameters, lactate clearance, and adequate urine output may not need additional fluids despite a low CVP. Conversely, a patient with oliguria, rising lactate, and poor capillary refill may benefit from further fluid resuscitation even if CVP appears adequate.

Viva 2: Adjunctive Therapies and Controversial Interventions

Examiner: What is the role of corticosteroids in septic shock?

Candidate: The evidence for corticosteroids in septic shock is mixed. The SSC 2021 guidelines provide a weak recommendation for low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with refractory septic shock, defined as requiring vasopressors greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min norepinephrine.

Key trials:

1. CORTICUS 2008: Hydrocortisone vs placebo. No mortality difference, but faster shock reversal (3 vs 5 days) with steroids. More hyperglycemia and hypernatremia with steroids.

2. Annane et al. 2002: Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs placebo in corticotropin non-responders. Significant mortality reduction (53% vs 63%). Benefit only in patients with relative adrenal insufficiency (cortisol increase below 9 µg/dL after ACTH).

3. ADRENAL 2018: Hydrocortisone 200 mg/day for 7 days vs placebo in 3,800 patients. No mortality difference. Faster shock resolution (3 vs 4 days), fewer days on mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.

4. APROCCHSS 2018: Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs placebo in 1,241 patients. Significant mortality reduction (43% vs 49%). Benefit more pronounced in patients not on baseline steroids.

Interpretation: The conflicting results (ADRENAL: no benefit; APROCCHSS: benefit) may be due to differences in study populations (ADRENAL included less severe shock) and the addition of fludrocortisone in APROCCHSS.

Current practice: I would give low-dose hydrocortisone (typically 50 mg IV q6h) to patients with refractory septic shock requiring high-dose norepinephrine (greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min). I would not perform ACTH stimulation testing. I would taper steroids over 5-7 days once vasopressor requirements decrease.

Examiner: What about vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone (HAT therapy)?

Candidate: HAT therapy is NOT recommended for routine use in septic shock. The evidence shows no mortality benefit.

Background: Marik et al. 2017 published a before-after study showing dramatic mortality reduction from 40.4% to 8.5% using HAT protocol (vitamin C 1.5 g q6h, hydrocortisone 50 mg q6h, thiamine 200 mg q12h). This sparked widespread interest despite being non-randomized.

RCTs:

1. VITAMINS 2020: HAT therapy vs hydrocortisone alone in 216 patients. No difference in primary outcome (vasopressor-free days) or mortality (34.5% vs 30.9%).

2. ACTS 2022: HAT therapy vs control in 202 patients. No difference in mortality (38.5% vs 34.3%).

3. LOVIT 2022: Vitamin C alone vs placebo in 1,561 patients. No mortality benefit (32.5% vs 30.1%), with a harm signal (higher mortality with vitamin C: 35.4% vs 31.6%).

Interpretation: The dramatic benefit in Marik's study was likely due to other factors (improved overall care, selection bias, Hawthorne effect) rather than HAT therapy. The RCTs consistently show no mortality benefit, and LOVIT suggests possible harm from vitamin C alone.

Current practice: I would NOT use HAT therapy outside of a clinical trial. I would still use hydrocortisone in refractory shock based on the weak recommendation in SSC guidelines, but vitamin C and thiamine are not part of routine sepsis management.

Examiner: What is the role of balanced crystalloids vs normal saline?

Candidate: I prefer balanced crystalloids over normal saline for sepsis resuscitation. The evidence suggests a reduction in AKI incidence with balanced solutions.

Key trials:

1. SMART 2018: 15,802 ICU patients randomized to balanced crystalloids (Plasma-Lyte, Lactated Ringer's) vs normal saline. Primary outcome: Major adverse kidney events (death, dialysis, persistent renal dysfunction). Results: 14.3% vs 15.4% - statistically significant 1% absolute reduction (NNT 100). Subgroup analysis: Benefit primarily in sepsis patients (15.6% vs 18.1%).

2. SALT-ED 2018: 13,347 non-ICU ED patients. No difference in hospital-free days (25 vs 25 days). No difference in AKI or mortality. Benefit less clear in less sick patients.

3. BaSICS 2021: 10,520 ICU patients (including sepsis). No difference in 90-day mortality (26.4% vs 27.2%). Conflict with SMART - possible differences in patient populations.

Physiologic rationale: Normal saline is hyperchloremic (Cl⁻ 154 mmol/L vs plasma 98-107 mmol/L), which can cause hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and is associated with AKI. Balanced crystalloids have physiologic chloride concentrations.

Current practice: I would use balanced crystalloids (Plasma-Lyte or Hartmann's) for ICU patients with sepsis. If unavailable, normal saline is acceptable but I would monitor for hyperchloremia and AKI.

Examiner: When would you use albumin in sepsis?

Candidate: Albumin is NOT recommended for routine use in sepsis resuscitation.

Evidence:

1. SAFE 2004: 4% albumin vs normal saline in 6,997 ICU patients. No overall mortality difference (20.9% vs 21.1%). Sepsis subgroup showed trend toward benefit (30.7% vs 35.3%) but not statistically significant in underpowered subgroup analysis.

2. SEP-1 2022: 20% albumin vs normal saline for initial resuscitation in 3,212 patients with sepsis. No mortality difference (32.3% vs 34.2%).

Current practice: I would consider albumin in specific situations:

• Patients requiring large-volume resuscitation (to reduce tissue edema)
• Severe hypoalbuminemia (below 20 g/L) with suspected intravascular hypovolemia
• Patients with contraindication to large-volume crystalloids (e.g., severe pulmonary edema, ARDS)

But for routine sepsis resuscitation, I would use balanced crystalloids.

Examiner: What is the transfusion threshold in sepsis?

Candidate: I use a restrictive transfusion threshold (Hb below 70 g/L) for most patients with sepsis.

Evidence: TRISS 2014: 998 patients with septic shock randomized to restrictive (Hb below 70 g/L) vs liberal (Hb below 90 g/L) transfusion. No difference in 90-day mortality (43% vs 45%). No difference in ischemic events. Restrictive group received fewer transfusions (median 1 vs 4 units).

Exceptions: I would use a higher threshold (Hb below 80 g/L) in:

• Patients with myocardial ischemia (e.g., troponin elevation, ECG changes)
• Ongoing active bleeding
• Chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure (to maintain oxygen delivery)

Transfusion practice: I would transfuse one unit at a time and reassess after each unit. I would avoid prophylactic transfusions for "borderline" Hb values without signs of tissue hypoxia.

Examiner: How do you decide when to give more fluids vs start vasopressors?

Candidate: This is an important clinical decision. My approach is:

Early vasopressors:

• I start norepinephrine early (often after initial fluid challenge) to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg
• I do not wait for "full" fluid resuscitation before starting vasopressors
• Early vasopressors may prevent excessive fluid administration and fluid overload

Fluid responsiveness assessment:

• If the patient is fluid-responsive (passive leg raise increases stroke volume greater than 10%), I give a fluid challenge (250-500 mL)
• If the patient is fluid non-responsive (no increase in stroke volume with passive leg raise), I avoid further fluids
• If I don't have stroke volume monitoring available, I rely on clinical response (improvement in MAP, lactate clearance, urine output) to guide fluid administration

Stop fluid resuscitation if:

• Patient is fluid non-responsive
• Evidence of fluid overload (pulmonary edema, rising CVP if measured)
• Clinical improvement (MAP target achieved, lactate clearing, urine output adequate)

Indications for more fluids:

• Persistent hypotension with evidence of hypovolemia
• Poor tissue perfusion (rising lactate, oliguria, poor capillary refill)
• Fluid responsiveness demonstrated

The key is to individualize management based on the patient's specific physiology rather than following a rigid protocol.

Examiner: How do you assess tissue perfusion in septic shock?

Candidate: I use a combination of parameters:

Lactate:

• Elevated lactate (greater than 2 mmol/L) indicates tissue hypoperfusion
• Serial measurements: Aim for lactate clearance (greater than 10% decrease per hour)
• Lactate clearance is a better prognostic marker than a single value

Clinical perfusion parameters:

• Capillary refill time: greater than 3 seconds suggests hypoperfusion
• Skin mottling: Presence over knees suggests poor perfusion
• Urine output: below 0.5 mL/kg/hr suggests renal hypoperfusion
• Peripheral perfusion: Cold extremities, prolonged capillary refill

Cardiac output monitoring (if available):

• Low cardiac output with high lactate suggests cardiogenic component
• Normal/high cardiac output with high lactate suggests distributive shock (sepsis) or mitochondrial dysfunction

ScvO₂ (if available):

• Low (below 70%) suggests imbalance between oxygen delivery and consumption
• But normal ScvO₂ does not exclude regional tissue hypoxia

The combination of these parameters gives a comprehensive picture of tissue perfusion. I prioritize clinical perfusion parameters (capillary refill, urine output, mental status) over lactate alone, as lactate can be elevated from other causes (liver dysfunction, seizures, thiamine deficiency).

---

SAQ Practice Questions

SAQ 1: Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT)

Question: (15 marks) Discuss the evidence for Early Goal-Directed Therapy (EGDT) in septic shock. Include the landmark Rivers trial, subsequent multicenter trials, and current recommendations for sepsis resuscitation.

Model Answer:

Rivers Trial (2001): ⁴

Single-center RCT of 263 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Intervention: EGDT protocol targeting CVP 8-12 mmHg, MAP ≥65 mmHg, ScvO₂ ≥70%, urine output ≥0.5 mL/kg/hr. Protocol included immediate central venous catheter, 30 mL/kg crystalloid bolus, vasopressors for MAP below 65 mmHg, blood transfusion if ScvO₂ below 70% and Hct below 30%, dobutamine if ScvO₂ below 70% after transfusion.

Results: In-hospital mortality 30.5% (EGDT) vs 46.5% (control) - 16% absolute reduction (NNT 6). 28-day mortality 33.3% vs 49.2%.

Impact: Became standard of care worldwide, incorporated into SSC bundles, drove protocolized resuscitation and invasive monitoring in ED.

Subsequent Multicenter Trials:

ProCESS Trial (2014): ⁵

Multicenter US trial, 1,341 patients. Compared: (1) EGDT (identical to Rivers), (2) Protocol-based standard therapy (no CVP/ScvO₂/transfusion targets), (3) Usual care. Primary: 60-day mortality.

Results: EGDT 21.0%, protocol standard 18.2%, usual care 18.9% - no difference. EGDT group received more fluids (5.4 vs 2.8 L), more vasopressors (dobutamine), more transfusions.

ARISE Trial (2014): ⁶

Multicenter (Australia/NZ/Finland/Hong Kong/Ireland), 1,600 patients. Compared EGDT vs usual care. Primary: 90-day mortality.

Results: EGDT 18.6%, usual care 18.8% - no difference (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.18). EGDT group received more fluids, transfusions, invasive monitoring.

PROMISE Trial (2015): ⁷

Multicenter (56 UK hospitals), 1,260 patients. Compared EGDT vs usual care. Primary: 90-day mortality.

Results: EGDT 29.5%, usual care 29.2% - no difference.

Meta-Analysis (2020 Cochrane): ⁸

5 trials, 4,424 patients. EGDT vs usual care: No mortality difference (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.07). EGDT associated with higher ICU admission rates.

Interpretation: EGDT benefit in Rivers trial likely due to suboptimal standard care at that time (delayed antibiotics, less aggressive resuscitation). By 2010s, usual care already incorporated early antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors - the important principles from EGDT. Rigid targets (CVP 8-12, ScvO₂ ≥70, transfusion Hct below 30) not required.

Current Recommendations (SSC 2021): ⁹

EGDT not recommended for routine sepsis management. Current bundle emphasizes:

1. Immediate lactate measurement
2. Blood cultures before antibiotics
3. Broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1 hour (septic shock) or 3 hours (sepsis without shock)
4. Initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L (individualized)
5. Norepinephrine first-line vasopressor, target MAP ≥65 mmHg
6. Add vasopressin if norepinephrine greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min

Key Learning Points:

• Early antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors are critical (principles from EGDT)
• Rigid invasive monitoring and targets (CVP, ScvO₂, transfusion) abandoned
• Individualized resuscitation based on clinical response, not protocolized targets
• CVP poor predictor of fluid responsiveness
• Restrictive transfusion (Hb below 70 g/L) preferred over liberal (Hct below 30%)

SAQ 2: Adjunctive Therapies in Sepsis

Question: (15 marks) Discuss the evidence for adjunctive therapies in septic shock, including corticosteroids, vitamin C + thiamine + hydrocortisone (HAT therapy), and albumin. Include key trials, outcomes, and current recommendations.

Model Answer:

Corticosteroids:

CORTICUS Trial (2008): ²¹

499 patients with septic shock. Hydrocortisone 50 mg q6h for 5 days (then taper) vs placebo. Primary: 28-day mortality.

Results: 34.3% vs 31.5% - no difference. Faster shock reversal with hydrocortisone (3 vs 5 days). More hyperglycemia, hypernatremia.

Annane et al. (2002): ²²

299 patients, corticotropin non-responders only. Hydrocortisone 50 mg q6h + fludrocortisone 50 µg daily for 7 days vs placebo.

Results: Mortality 53% (placebo) vs 63% (steroids) - benefit only in non-responders (cortisol increase below 9 µg/dL after ACTH).

ADRENAL Trial (2018): ²³

3,800 patients with septic shock. Hydrocortisone 200 mg daily for 7 days vs placebo. Primary: 90-day mortality.

Results: 27.9% vs 28.8% - no difference. Faster shock resolution (3 vs 4 days), fewer ventilator/ICU days.

APROCCHSS Trial (2018): ²⁴

1,241 patients with septic shock. Hydrocortisone + fludrocortisone vs placebo. Primary: 90-day mortality.

Results: 43.0% vs 49.1% - significant mortality reduction. Benefit more pronounced without baseline steroids.

Current recommendation: SSC 2021 weak recommendation for low-dose hydrocortisone in refractory septic shock (vasopressor requirement greater than 0.25-0.5 µg/kg/min). No need for ACTH testing. Taper over 5-7 days.

Vitamin C + Thiamine + Hydrocortisone (HAT Therapy):

Marik et al. (2017): ²⁵

Before-after study, dramatic mortality reduction from 40.4% to 8.5% using HAT protocol. Non-randomized, sparked widespread interest.

VITAMINS Trial (2020): ²⁶

216 patients. HAT therapy (vitamin C 1.5 g q6h + hydrocortisone 50 mg q6h + thiamine 200 mg q12h) vs hydrocortisone alone. Primary: Vasopressor-free days at day 7.

Results: No difference (122.1 vs 124.6 hours). 90-day mortality 34.5% vs 30.9% - no difference.

ACTS Trial (2022): ²⁷

202 patients. HAT vs control. Primary: Death or persistent organ dysfunction.

Results: 38.5% vs 34.3% - no difference.

LOVIT Trial (2022): ²⁸

1,561 patients with sepsis. Vitamin C alone vs placebo. Primary: Death or persistent organ dysfunction.

Results: 32.5% vs 30.1% - no difference. Harm signal: mortality 35.4% vs 31.6% (higher with vitamin C).

Current recommendation: HAT therapy NOT recommended for routine use. Evidence shows no mortality benefit, possible harm. Hydrocortisone still recommended in refractory shock.

Albumin:

SAFE Trial (2004): ¹⁶

6,997 ICU patients. 4% albumin vs normal saline. Primary: 28-day mortality.

Results: 20.9% vs 21.1% - no difference. Sepsis subgroup: 30.7% vs 35.3% - trend (not significant, underpowered).

SEP-1 Trial (2022): ¹⁷

3,212 patients with sepsis. 20% albumin vs normal saline for initial resuscitation. Primary: 90-day mortality.

Results: 32.3% vs 34.2% - no difference (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.05).

Current recommendation: Albumin NOT recommended for routine use. Consider in specific situations:

• Large-volume resuscitation (reduce tissue edema)
• Severe hypoalbuminemia (below 20 g/L) with intravascular hypovolemia
• Contraindication to large-volume crystalloids (pulmonary edema, ARDS)

Summary of Adjunctive Therapies:

Key Learning Points:

• Evidence-based practice requires high-quality RCT data, not before-after studies
• Initial dramatic results from observational studies often not confirmed in RCTs (HAT therapy)
• Adjunctive therapies in sepsis have limited evidence; focus on fundamentals (antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors)
• When evidence is mixed, weak recommendations in guidelines reflect uncertainty

---

References

1. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774. PMID: 26903338

2. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589-1596. PMID: 16540949

3. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235-2244. PMID: 28528569

4. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368-1377. PMID: 11794169

5. The ProCESS Investigators. A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683-1693. PMID: 24635770

6. The ARISE Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Early Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496-1506. PMID: 25272385

7. Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, et al. Trial of Early, Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1301-1311. PMID: 25776031

8. Bentzer P, Fries D, Sakr Y, et al. Early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10:CD009691. PMID: 33066228

9. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247. PMID: 34196156

10. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, et al. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):222-231. PMID: 20069662

11. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after Fluid Bolus in African Children with Severe Infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483-2495. PMID: 21691319

12. Hjortrup PB, Perner A, Winkel P, et al. Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Administration for Septic Shock in the ICU: A Post Hoc Analysis of the CLASSIC Randomized Clinical Trial. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(1):1-10. PMID: 34584724

13. Self WH, Semler MW, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829-839. PMID: 29365304

14. Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Noncritically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):819-828. PMID: 29365303

15. Zampieri FG, Azevedo LC, Hajjar LA, et al. Balanced Crystalloid versus Saline in Critically III Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial (BaSICS). JAMA. 2021;326(24):2511-2521. PMID: 34788463

16. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A Comparison of Albumin and Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247-2256. PMID: 15163775

17. Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin Replacement in Patients with Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1412-1421. PMID: 24778088

18. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in the Treatment of Shock. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):779-789. PMID: 20187167

19. Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, et al. Effect of Early Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine on Kidney Failure in Patients with Septic Shock: The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316(5):509-518. PMID: 27533158

20. Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine Infusion in Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):877-887. PMID: 18287660

21. Sprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, et al. Hydrocortisone Therapy for Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(2):111-124. PMID: 18184957

22. Annane D, Sébille V, Charpentier C, et al. Effect of Treatment With Low Doses of Hydrocortisone and Fludrocortisone on Mortality in Patients With Septic Shock. JAMA. 2002;288(7):862-871. PMID: 12186604

23. Venkatesh B, Finfer S, Cohen J, et al. Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):797-808. PMID: 29365302

24. Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C, et al. Hydrocortisone Plus Fludrocortisone for Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):809-818. PMID: 29365301

25. Marik PE, Khangoora V, Rivera R, et al. Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid and Thiamine for the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Retrospective Before-After Study. Chest. 2017;151(6):1229-1238. PMID: 28264165

26. Fujii T, Luethi N, Young PJ, et al. Effect of Vitamin C, Hydrocortisone, and Thiamine vs Hydrocortisone Alone on Time Alive and Free of Vasopressor Support Among Patients With Septic Shock: The VITAMINS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(14):1361-1370. PMID: 32216616

27. Fowler AA, Truwit JD, Hite RD, et al. Effect of Vitamin C Infusion on Organ Failure and Biomarkers of Inflammation and Vascular Injury in Patients With Sepsis and Severe Acute Respiratory Failure: The CITRIS-ALI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(13):1261-1270. PMID: 31571698

28. Fowler AA III, Syed AA, Knowlson K, et al. Effect of Vitamin C Infusion on Organ Failure and Biomarkers of Inflammation and Vascular Injury in Patients With Sepsis and Severe Acute Respiratory Failure: The CITRIS-ALI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(13):1261-1270. PMID: 31571698

29. Lamontagne F, Briel M, Guyatt GH, et al. Corticosteroid Therapy for Sepsis: A Clinical Practice Guideline. BMJ. 2018;362:k3284. PMID: 30146248

30. Quraishi SA, Camargo CA, Bhan I, et al. Effect of Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Vitamin D Deficiency: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1061-1069. PMID: 31454124

31. Janda S, Young A, Fitzgerald JM, et al. The Effect of Statins on Mortality from Severe Infections and Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Crit Care. 2010;25(2):311-317. PMID: 20083266

32. Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J, et al. Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) Trial: Comparing the Effects of a Liberal versus a Restrictive Transfusion Strategy on All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Septic Shock. JAMA. 2014;311(14):1405-1414. PMID: 24776645

33. Ferré R, Artigas A, Levy MM, et al. Improvement in Process of Care and Outcome after a Multicenter Severe Sepsis Educational Program in Spain. JAMA. 2008;299(19):2294-2303. PMID: 18487211

34. Eachempati SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS. Severity of Illness Scoring Systems to Measure Outcome: Are They Useful? Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2002;3(2):155-164. PMID: 12075503

35. Vincent JL, Laterre PF, Cohen J, et al. A Multi-Country, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Patients with Severe Sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(12):2876-2885. PMID: 17069878

36. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al. Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2055-2064. PMID: 22397652

37. Kalil AC, Johnson DW, Lisco SJ, et al. Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R210. PMID: 21834951

38. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Bell D, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: A Move toward Standardization. JAMA. 2012;307(2):155-166. PMID: 22212172

39. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-377. PMID: 28101798

40. Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, Rhodes A. Sepsis and Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(2):150-161. PMID: 29752108

41. Jones AE, Puskarich MA. Sepsis-3, Septic Shock, and Fluid Resuscitation: How Should We Define Success? Crit Care Med. 2016;44(5):920-922. PMID: 26877334

42. Seymour CW, Rea TD, Kahn JM, et al. Severe Sepsis in Pre-Hospital Emergency Care: Analysis of Incidence, Care, and Outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(12):1264-1271. PMID: 22997271

43. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, et al. Epidemiology of Severe Sepsis in the United States: Analysis of Incidence, Outcome, and Associated Costs of Care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(7):1303-1310. PMID: 11445675

44. Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the Incidence and Mortality of Severe Sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1167-1174. PMID: 23546023

45. Lagu T, Rothberg MB, Shieh MS, et al. Hospitalizations, Costs, and Outcomes of Severe Sepsis in the United States 2003 to 2007. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(3):754-761. PMID: 21926362

46. Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Suzuki S, et al. Mortality Related to Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock among Critically Ill Patients in Australia and New Zealand, 2000-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1308-1316. PMID: 24638143

47. Cohen J, Vincent JL, Adhikari NK, et al. Sepsis: A Roadmap for Future Research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(5):581-614. PMID: 25867256

48. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):775-787. PMID: 26903337