Background and PurposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG 2016), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two‐thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J‐SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta‐analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese‐specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non‐specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.
Background and purposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-017-0270-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
ObjectivesThe Mycoses Forum in Japan has developed management bundles for candidaemia to incorporate into bedside practice. The aim of this study was to investigate nationwide compliance with the bundles and their impact on clinical outcomes.MethodsNon-neutropenic patients treated with antifungals for candidaemia were surveyed. Bundles consist of nine items to complete. Data were sent to the central office between July 2011 and April 2012.ResultsSix hundred and eight patients were analysed. The compliance rate for achieving all elements was 6.9%, and it increased to 21.4% when compliance was analysed by the bundle except for oral switch. There was a significant difference in clinical success between patients with and without compliance [92.9% versus 75.8% (P = 0.011)]. Compliance with the bundles, however, failed to be an independent factor associated with favourable outcomes. When step-down oral therapy was excluded from the elements of compliance, compliance with the bundles was revealed to be an independent predictor of clinical success (OR 4.42, 95% CI 2.05–9.52) and mortality (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13–0.57). Independent individual elements contributing to clinical success were removal of central venous catheters within 24 h, assessment of clinical efficacy on the third to the fifth day and at least 2 weeks of therapy after clearance of candidaemia.ConclusionsCompliance with the bundles for candidaemia had a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. Promotion of the bundles approach may have the potential to narrow the gap between clinical evidence and bedside practice.
Background The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide. Methods We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies. Results There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese. Conclusions The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.
Polymyxin B-immobilized fiber column direct hemoperfusion (PMX-DHP) therapy is widely used for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock, and is generally performed for 2 h. Although previous studies demonstrated the efficacy of PMX-DHP therapy, it currently remains unclear whether its optimal duration is 2 h. This retrospective study analyzed 37 patients with septic shock who showed a poor clinical response to 2 h of PMX-DHP, and underwent a longer duration of this therapy. The mean duration of PMX-DHP therapy was 15.8 ± 7.9 h, and none of the patients developed adverse events, which enabled the therapy to be performed safely. The pressure catecholamine index [CAIP = catecholamine index/mean arterial pressure; catecholamine index = dopamine + dobutamine + (adrenaline + noradrenaline) × 100 μg/kg per min], as an indicator of hemodynamics, improved significantly in the survival group in the period between the start and 24 h after the end of PMX-DHP therapy (P < 0.01), and between 2 h after the start of and the end of this therapy (P < 0.05). In addition, the P/F ratio improved significantly in the group of surviving patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the period between the start and 24 h after the end of PMX-DHP therapy (P < 0.01), and between 2 h after the start of and the end of this therapy (P < 0.01). These results suggest that a longer duration of PMX-DHP therapy can be expected to improve the hemodynamics and pulmonary oxygenation capacity of patients with severe sepsis/septic shock. Strict prospective studies are needed in the future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.