FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023752803> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023752803 endingPage "1162" @default.
• W2023752803 startingPage "1160" @default.
• W2023752803 abstract "Sir: We read with interest the recent revision of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines by Dellinger et al. [1]. The use of the GRADE system to classify the strength of the recommendations has certainly improved the guidelines. However, we regret that not all guidelines were adjusted according to the current literature.First of all, the absence of a recommendation regarding selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) is striking. The guidelines group was evenly split, with equal numbers weakly in favor and against recommending the use of SDD. This is remarkable, since SDD is one of the best ever evaluated therapies in intensive care medicine, with more than 50 randomized controlled trials and 10 meta-analyses showing that SDD reduces pneumonia by 65% and mortality by 22% [2].The authors gave several reasons why they chose not to recommend SDD in their guidelines. They argue that no studies regarding SDD specifically focused on septic patients. However, several other guidelines based on general ICU populations (i.e., stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, glucose control and bicarbonate therapy) received strong recommendations.Furthermore, the authors state that studies comparing SDD with non-antimicrobial interventions, such as ventilator bundles, are needed. Are they seriously suggesting that until these studies have been performed a therapy with proven high efficiency should be withheld from patients with severe sepsis? It seems that no scientific arguments, no study whatsoever could change the apparently biased authors.The main argument against the use of SDD is the persistent concern regarding emergence of antimicrobial resistance in critically ill patients. Antimicrobial resistance was not a clinical problem in 10 SDD studies monitoring resistance for 2–9 years [3–11]. SDD even seemed to reduce the resistance of aerobic Gram-negative bacilli, the target microorganisms of SDD [12, 13], possibly because the addition of enteral to parenteral antimicrobials prevents spontaneous mutation of target bacteria and eradicates mutants. In their “rationale” the authors are especially concerned about emergence of resistant Gram-positive infections. The SDD prophylaxis is not active against vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and may promote gut overgrowth of these intrinsically resistant bacteria. Therefore, in ICUs with endemic MRSA enteral vancomycin is required as a component of SDD. VRE did not emerge in any of the studies using enteral vancomycin, and there is no evidence that SDD promotes infection due to Gram-positive bacteria [14–19]. On the contrary, the continued use of only systemic antibiotics may lead to a further rise in drug-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. We propose, therefore, that the authors of the SSC guidelines use the available literature instead of their bias.Secondly, the strong recommendation in favor of the use of stress ulcer prophylaxis is not, in our view, in line with currently available evidence. This recommendation is, like that in the guidelines of 2004, still mainly based on ancient studies performed in the 1980s [20–23], a meta-analysis from 1991 [24], and a large trial in 1998 [25] without a control arm. However, the most recent meta-analysis [26] shows no reduction of clinical important bleeding – but is somehow completely ignored. Whether the results of these older trials are applicable nowadays is questionable, since the incidence of stress ulcer-related bleeding has significantly decreased over recent decades due to improved ICU treatment [27, 28]. This definitely affects the balance between the benefit of prevention of gastro-intestinal bleeding and the increased risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia due to higher stomach pH [29]. Several recent trials show comparable rates of bleeding and endoscopic evidence of stress-related injury between treatment and placebo groups [30–33]. These results are pathophysiologically plausible, since stress ulcers are caused not by increased secretion of gastric acid, but by splanchnic hypoperfusion. Unfortunately, many recent trials only compare H2 blockers with proton pump inhibitors, without a placebo group. Altogether, according to the most recent meta-analysis and the more recent trials, a strong recommendation not to use stress ulcer prophylaxis would be more appropriate.Thirdly, we disagree with the strength of the recommendation to reduce blood glucose levels in patients with severe sepsis. On the current evidence, this should be at most a weak recommendation. The beneficial effect of intensive insulin therapy has been demonstrated only in surgical patients, not in septic patients [34–36]. The benefit versus harm balance of intensive insulin therapy may be quite different for patients with severe sepsis than for the investigated surgical patients. It is not unreasonable to assume that septic patients may be more at risk for hypoglycemia, because sepsis may be associated with a deficiency of counterregulatory hormones. In the study of medical patients by van den Berghe [36], as well as the VISEP study [35] and the Glucontrol study [34], the risk of hypoglycemia was substantially increased, and hypoglycemia was an independent risk factor for mortality. None of these studies followed up the patients with hypoglycemia for neurocognitive impairment. Furthermore, the target glucose level of <150 mg/dl recommended in the guidelines is based solely on expert opinion and is not supported by data from any trial. Therefore, the beneficial effect, the harmlessness, and the target glucose level of intensive insulin therapy remain to be demonstrated in septic patients.In conclusion, the revised SSC guidelines have certainly been improved by the use of the GRADE system to classify the strength of the recommendations. However, a strong recommendation in favor of the use of SDD should have been implemented. The strong recommendations in favor of stress ulcer prophylaxis and glucose control are not in line with current evidence." @default.
• W2023752803 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023752803 creator A5021970332 @default.
• W2023752803 creator A5031834954 @default.
• W2023752803 date "2008-04-16" @default.
• W2023752803 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2023752803 title "Comment on “Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008” by Dellinger et al." @default.
• W2023752803 cites W1709269893 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W1964216371 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W1972838869 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2009416510 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2022394706 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2029814056 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2030497514 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2038043605 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2041542881 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2042702683 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2043794877 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2055620951 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2071690415 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2071765827 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2074675545 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2089932464 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2092426428 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2093261127 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2093613912 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2097364424 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2115285670 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2118858814 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2135801231 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2154611259 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2159161102 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2160967161 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2316130350 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2321823406 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2333243471 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W2461766871 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W3150633739 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W4323254563 @default.
• W2023752803 cites W4376595315 @default.
• W2023752803 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1089-5" @default.
• W2023752803 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2480487" @default.
• W2023752803 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18415078" @default.
• W2023752803 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2023752803 type Work @default.
• W2023752803 sameAs 2023752803 @default.
• W2023752803 citedByCount "35" @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032013 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032014 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032015 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032016 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032018 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032020 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032021 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032022 @default.
• W2023752803 countsByYear W20237528032023 @default.
• W2023752803 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023752803 hasAuthorship W2023752803A5021970332 @default.
• W2023752803 hasAuthorship W2023752803A5031834954 @default.
• W2023752803 hasBestOaLocation W20237528031 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2776914243 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2777628635 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2778384902 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2779526319 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2781300812 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2991975920 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C2994086866 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C126322002 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C177713679 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C194828623 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2776914243 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2777628635 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2778384902 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2779526319 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2781300812 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2991975920 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C2994086866 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C42219234 @default.
• W2023752803 hasConceptScore W2023752803C71924100 @default.
• W2023752803 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2023752803 hasLocation W20237528031 @default.
• W2023752803 hasLocation W20237528032 @default.
• W2023752803 hasLocation W20237528033 @default.
• W2023752803 hasLocation W20237528034 @default.
• W2023752803 hasOpenAccess W2023752803 @default.
• W2023752803 hasPrimaryLocation W20237528031 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W2016213571 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W2023752803 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W2107472366 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W3217343680 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W4231753763 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W4239935031 @default.
• W2023752803 hasRelatedWork W4239940983 @default.

• next