Despite more than 5 decades of study and debate, the role of corticosteroid treatment in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Data support a beneficial effect on systemic blood pressure in patients with septic shock. However, the ability of corticosteroid therapy to improve mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial, with contradictory results from recent large multicenter clinical trials. Although it appears clear that high-dose corticosteroid treatment provides no benefit and possibly harm in septic patients, the experimental design flaws and biases of recent low-dose (physiologic) steroid treatment trials limit their ability to provide adequate answers to the important questions of which septic patients should be treated, how much steroid to give, and the optimum duration of treatment. Unfortunately, the answer to these important questions is not readily evident based on the current evidence or the application of metaanalysis to the available clinical data. This concise evidence-based review highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the current data to inform the practicing clinician as to which patients are likely to derive significant benefit from corticosteroid treatment, while we await more definitive guidance from future multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trials designed to better answer these important therapeutic questions.

SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adult patients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502).

Background Use of indwelling urinary catheters can lead to complications, most commonly catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Duration of catheterization is the major risk factor. These infections can result in sepsis, prolonged hospitalization, additional hospital costs, and mortality. Objectives To implement and evaluate the efficacy of an intervention to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections in a medical intensive care unit by decreasing use of urinary catheters. Methods Indications for continuing urinary catheterization with indwelling devices were developed by unit clinicians. For a 6-month intervention period, patients in a medical intensive care unit who had indwelling urinary catheters were evaluated daily by using criteria for appropriate catheter continuance. Recommendations were made to discontinue indwelling urinary catheters in patients who did not meet the criteria. Days of use of a urinary catheter and rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infections during the intervention were compared with those of the preceding 11 months. Results During the study period, 337 patients had a total of 1432 days of urinary catheterization. With use of guidelines, duration of use was significantly reduced to a mean of 238.6 d/mo from the previous rate of 311.7 d/mo. The number of catheter-associated urinary tract infections per 1000 days of use was a mean of 4.7/mo before the intervention and zero during the 6-month intervention period. Conclusions Implementation of an intervention to judge appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheters may result in significant reductions in duration of catheterization and occurrences of catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

The optimum septic shock vasopressor support strategy is currently debated. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine (NE) and dopamine (DA) as the initial vasopressor in septic shock patients who were managed with a specific treatment protocol. A prospective, randomized, open-label, clinical trial was used in a medical intensive care unit comparing DA with NE as the initial vasopressor in fluid-resuscitated 252 adult patients with septic shock. If the maximum dose of the initial vasopressor was unable to maintain the hemodynamic goal, then fixed-dose vasopressin was added to each regimen. If additional vasopressor support was needed to achieve the hemodynamic goal, then phenylephrine was added. The primary efficacy end point was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary end points included organ dysfunction, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and safety (primarily occurrence of arrhythmias). The 28-day mortality rate was 50% (67/134) with DA as the initial vasopressor compared with 43% (51/118) for NE treatment (P = 0.282). There was a significantly greater incidence of sinus tachycardia with DA (24.6%; 33/134) than NE (5.9%; 7/118) and arrhythmias noted with DA treatment (19.4%; 26/134) compared with NE treatment (3.4%; 4/118; P < 0.0001), respectively. Logistic regression analysis identified Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (P < 0.0001) and arrhythmia (P < 0.015) as significant predictors of outcome. In this protocol-directed vasopressor support strategy for septic shock, DA and NE were equally effective as initial agents as judged by 28-day mortality rates. However, there were significantly more cardiac arrhythmias with DA treatment. Patients receiving DA should be monitored for the development of cardiac arrhythmias (NCT00604019).

No abstract