Barnes-Jewish Hospital

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Osteoporosis, a disease endemic in Western society, typically reflects an imbalance in skeletal turnover so that bone resorption exceeds bone formation. Bone resorption is the unique function of the osteoclast, and anti-osteoporosis therapy to date has targeted this cell. The osteoclast is a specialized macrophage polykaryon whose differentiation is principally regulated by macrophage colony-stimulating factor, RANK ligand, and osteoprotegerin. Reflecting integrin-mediated signals, the osteoclast develops a specialized cytoskeleton that permits it to establish an isolated microenvironment between itself and bone, wherein matrix degradation occurs by a process involving proton transport. Osteopetrotic mutants have provided a wealth of information about the genes that regulate the differentiation of osteoclasts and their capacity to resorb bone.

This document represents the first collaboration between 2 organizations-the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine-to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric critically ill patient (>1 month and <18 years) expected to require a length of stay >2-3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/MEDLINE search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer 1 of the 8 preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutrition assessment-particularly, the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery are areas of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.

Importance: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor. Objective: To investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles). Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group. Results: Of the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is secreted exclusively by prostatic epithelial cells, and its serum concentration is increased in men with prostatic disease, including cancer. We evaluated its usefulness in the detection and staging of prostate cancer. METHODS: We measured serum PSA concentrations in 1653 healthy men 50 or more years old. Those with PSA values greater than or equal to 4.0 micrograms per liter then underwent rectal examination and prostatic ultrasonography. Ultrasound-directed prostatic needle biopsies were performed in the men with abnormal findings on rectal examination, ultrasonography, or both. The results were compared with those in 300 consecutively studied men 50 or more years old who underwent ultrasound-directed biopsy because of symptoms or abnormal findings on rectal examination. RESULTS: Serum PSA levels ranged from 4.0 to 9.9 micrograms per liter in 6.5 percent of the 1653 men (107). Nineteen of the 85 men in this group (22 percent) who had prostatic biopsies had prostate cancer. Serum PSA levels were 10.0 micrograms per liter or higher in 1.8 percent of the 1653 men (30). Eighteen of the 27 men in this group (67 percent) who had prostatic biopsies had cancer. If rectal examination alone had been used to screen the men who had biopsies, 12 of the 37 cancers (32 percent) would have been missed. If ultrasonography alone had been used to screen these men, 16 of the 37 cancers (43 percent) would have been missed. Serum PSA measurement had the lowest error rate of the tests, and PSA measurement plus rectal examination had the lowest error rate of the two-test combinations. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of measurement of the serum PSA concentration and rectal examination, with ultrasonography performed in patients with abnormal findings, provides a better method of detecting prostate cancer than rectal examination alone.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

BACKGROUND: The impact of a recurrent defect on the outcome after rotator cuff repair has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional and anatomic results after arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears with use of ultrasound as an imaging modality to determine the postoperative integrity of the repair. METHODS: Eighteen patients who had complete arthroscopic repair of a tear measuring >2 cm in the transverse dimension were evaluated at a minimum of twelve months after surgery and again at two years after surgery. The evaluation consisted of a standardized history and physical examination as well as calculation of the preoperative and postoperative shoulder scores according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. The strength of both shoulders was quantitated postoperatively with use of a portable dynamometer. Ultrasound studies were performed with use of an established and validated protocol at a minimum of twelve months after surgery. RESULTS: Recurrent tears were seen in seventeen of the eighteen patients. Despite the absence of healing at twelve months after surgery, thirteen patients had an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >/=90 points. Sixteen patients had an improvement in the functional outcome score, which increased from an average of 48.3 to 84.6 points. Sixteen patients had a decrease in pain, and twelve had no pain. Although eight patients had preoperative forward elevation to <95 degrees, all eighteen regained motion above shoulder level and had an average of 152 degrees of elevation. At the second evaluation, a minimum of twenty-four months after surgery, the average score, according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, had decreased to 79.9 points; only nine patients had a score of >/=90 points, and six patients had a score of </=79 points. The average forward elevation decreased to 142 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears led to a high percentage of recurrent defects. The minimum twelve-month evaluation showed excellent pain relief and improvement in the ability to perform activities of daily living despite the high rate of recurrent defects; however, at a minimum follow-up of two years, the results deteriorated with only twelve patients who had an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >/=80.

grade for the recommendation was based on the number and level of investigative studies referable to that guideline.Large studies warranting level I evidence were defined as those with ≥100 patients or those which fulfilled endpoint criteria predetermined by power analysis.The level of evidence for uncontrolled studies was determined by whether they included contemporaneous controls (level III), historical controls (level IV), or no controls (level V, equal to expert opinion).See Table 1. 1 Review papers and consensus statements were considered expert opinion and were designated the appropriate level of evidence.Meta-analyses were used to organize the information and to draw conclusions about an overall treatment effect from multiple studies on a particular subject.The grade of recommendation, however, was based on the level of evidence of the individual studies.An A or B grade recommendation required at least 1 or 2 large positive randomized trials supporting the claim, while a C grade recommendation required only 1 small supportive randomized investigation.The rationale for each guideline statement was used to clarify certain points from the studies, to identify controversies, and to provide clarity in the derivation of the final recommendation.Significant controversies in interpretation of the literature were resolved by consensus of opinion of the committee members, which in some cases led to a downgrade of the recommendation.Following an extensive review process by external reviewers, the final guideline

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) or inflammatory pseudotumor is a spindle cell proliferation of disputed nosology, with a distinctive fibroinflammatory and even pseudosarcomatous appearance. Although the lung is the best known and most common site, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor occurs in diverse extrapulmonary locations. We report our experience with 84 cases occurring in the soft tissues and viscera of 48 female patients and 36 male patients between the ages of 3 months and 46 years (mean, 9.7 years; median, 9 years). A mass, fever, weight loss, pain, and site-specific symptoms were the presenting complaints. Laboratory abnormalities included anemia, thrombocytosis, polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Sites of involvement included abdomen, retroperitoneum, or pelvis (61 cases); head and neck, including upper respiratory tract (12 cases); trunk (8 cases); and extremities (3 cases). The lesions ranged in size from 1 to 17 cm (mean, 6.4; median, 6.0). Excision was performed in 69 cases. Eight had biopsy only. Five patients received chemotherapy or radiation in addition to undergoing biopsy or resection as initial treatment. Sixteen patients had multinodular masses involving one region. Clinical follow-up in 53 cases revealed that 44 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, four were alive with IMT, and five were dead. Thirteen patients had one or more recurrences at intervals of 1-24 months (mean, 6 months; median, 10 months). No distant metastases were documented. The five patients who died had complications either due to the location of the lesion (heart, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, or mesentery) or related to treatment (lymphoproliferative disorder following hepatic transplantation; sepsis following wound infection). The abdominal masses were the largest. All tumors were firm and white with infiltrative borders and focal myxoid change. Three basic histologic patterns were recognized: (a) myxoid, vascular, and inflammatory areas resembling nodular fasciitis; (b) compact spindle cells with intermingled inflammatory cells (lymphocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils) resembling fibrous histiocytoma; and (c) dense plate-like collagen resembling a desmoid or scar. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated positivity for vimentin, muscle-specific actin, smooth muscle actin, and cytokeratin consistent with myofibroblasts. Based on this series, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is a benign, nonmetastasizing proliferation of myofibroblasts with a potential for recurrence and persistent local growth, similar in some respects to the fibromatoses.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

The process of surface adhesion and biofilm development is a survival strategy employed by virtually all bacteria and refined over millions of years. This process is designed to anchor microorganisms in a nutritionally advantageous environment and to permit their escape to greener pastures when essential growth factors have been exhausted. Bacterial attachment to a surface can be divided into several distinct phases, including primary and reversible adhesion, secondary and irreversible adhesion, and biofilm formation. Each of these phases is ultimately controlled by the expression of one or more gene products. Ultrastructurally, the mature bacterial biofilm resembles an underwater coral reef containing pyramidal or mushroom-shaped microcolonies of organisms embedded within an extracellular glycocalyx, with channels and cavities to allow the exchange of nutrients and waste. The biofilm protects its inhabitants from predators, dehydration, biocides, and other environmental extremes while regulating population growth and diversity through primitive cell signals. From a physiological standpoint, surface-bound bacteria behave quite differently from their planktonic counterparts. Recognizing that bacteria naturally occur as surface-bound and often polymicrobic communities, the practice of performing antimicrobial susceptibility tests using pure cultures and in a planktonic growth mode should be questioned. That this model does not reflect conditions found in nature might help explain the difficulties encountered in the management and treatment of biomedical implant infections.

OBJECTIVES: Compelling evidence has shown that aggressive resuscitation bundles, adequate source control, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and organ support are cornerstone for the success in the treatment of patients with sepsis. Delay in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy has been recognized as a risk factor for mortality. To perform a retrospective analysis on the Surviving Sepsis Campaign database to evaluate the relationship between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a large dataset collected prospectively for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. SETTING: One hundred sixty-five ICUs in Europe, the United States, and South America. PATIENTS: A total of 28,150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, from January 2005 through February 2010, were evaluated. INTERVENTIONS: Antibiotic administration and hospital mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 17,990 patients received antibiotics after sepsis identification and were included in the analysis. In-hospital mortality was 29.7% for the cohort as a whole. There was a statically significant increase in the probability of death associated with the number of hours of delay for first antibiotic administration. Hospital mortality adjusted for severity (sepsis severity score), ICU admission source (emergency department, ward, vs ICU), and geographic region increased steadily after 1 hour of time to antibiotic administration. Results were similar in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, regardless of the number of organ failure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis of this large population of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock demonstrate that delay in first antibiotic administration was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. In addition, there was a linear increase in the risk of mortality for each hour delay in antibiotic administration. These results underscore the importance of early identification and treatment of septic patients in the hospital setting.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS (INTENT OF GUIDELINES) A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM are both nonprofit organizations composed of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. The mission of A.S.P.E.N. is to improve patient care by advancing the science and practice of clinical nutrition and metabolism. The mission of SCCM is to secure the highest quality care for all critically ill and injured patients. Guideline Limitations: These A.S.P.E.N.−SCCM Clinical Guidelines are based on general conclusions of health professionals who, in developing such guidelines, have balanced potential benefits to be derived from a particular mode of medical therapy against certain risks inherent with such therapy. However, practice guidelines are not intended as absolute requirements. The use of these practice guidelines does not in any way project or guarantee any specific benefit in outcome or survival. The judgment of the healthcare professional based on individual circumstances of the patient must always take precedence over the recommendations in these guidelines. The guidelines offer basic recommendations that are supported by review and analysis of the current literature, other national and international guidelines, and a blend of expert opinion and clinical practicality. The population of critically ill patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) is not homogeneous. Many of the studies on which the guidelines are based are limited by sample size, patient heterogeneity, variability in disease severity, lack of baseline nutritional status, and insufficient statistical power for analysis. Periodic Guideline Review and Update: This particular report is an update and expansion of guidelines published by A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM in 2009 (1). Governing bodies of both A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM have mandated that these guidelines be updated every three to five years. The database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that served as the platform for the analysis of the literature was assembled in a joint “harmonization process” with the Canadian Clinical Guidelines group. Once completed, each group operated separately in their interpretation of the studies and derivation of guideline recommendations (2). The current A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM guidelines included in this paper were derived from data obtained via literature searches by the authors through December 31, 2013. Although the committee was aware of landmark studies published after this date, these data were not included in this manuscript. The process by which the literature was evaluated necessitated a common end date for the search review. Adding a last-minute landmark trial would have introduced bias unless a formalized literature search was re-conducted for all sections of the manuscript. Target Patient Population for Guideline: The target of these guidelines is intended to be the adult (≥ 18 years) critically ill patient expected to require a length of stay (LOS) greater than 2 or 3 days in a medical ICU (MICU) or surgical ICU (SICU). The current guidelines were expanded to include a number of additional subsets of patients who met the above criteria, but were not included in the previous 2009 guidelines. Specific patient populations addressed by these expanded and updated guidelines include organ failure (pulmonary, renal, and liver), acute pancreatitis, surgical subsets (trauma, traumatic brain injury [TBI], open abdomen [OA], and burns), sepsis, postoperative major surgery, chronic critically ill, and critically ill obese. These guidelines are directed toward generalized patient populations but, like any other management strategy in the ICU, nutrition therapy should be tailored to the individual patient. Target Audience: The intended use of these guidelines is for all healthcare providers involved in nutrition therapy of the critically ill, primarily physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists. Methodology: The authors compiled clinical questions reflecting key management issues in nutrition therapy. A committee of multidisciplinary experts in clinical nutrition composed of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians was jointly convened by the two societies. Literature searches were then performed using key words (critically ill, critical care, intensive care, nutrition, enteral, parenteral, tube feeding, and those related to assigned topics such as pancreatitis, sepsis, etc.) to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting a response to those questions, which were then used to derive a subsequent treatment recommendation. The literature search included MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, the National Guidelines Clearing House and an Internet search using the Google search engine for scholarly articles through an end date of December 31, 2013 (including ePub publications). While preference was given to RCTs, other forms of resource material were used to support the response, including nonrandomized cohort trials, prospective observational studies, and retrospective case series. Use of publications was limited to full-text articles available in English on adult humans. For all included RCTs, two readers completed data abstraction forms (DAFs) examining the data and assessing the quality of the research methodology to produce a shared evaluation achieved by consensus for each study (example of DAF provided in the supplemental data, Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). DAFs were constructed only for RCTs. When the strongest available evidence was a published meta-analysis, the studies from the meta-analysis were used to determine the quality of the evidence and assessed by two evidence assessors. The data from included trials were entered into Review Manager 5.2 software to create forest plots aggregating the effect size for each intervention and outcome (3). The key forest plots supporting the recommendation are included throughout the text and in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). No new forest plots were created when a meta-analysis was evaluated. Since release of the 2009 A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM Clinical Guidelines, the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group have A of the methodology published The data from the Review Manager analysis was to software the of evidence for a given intervention and outcome was evaluated for created each that was then by a The are provided in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). to the number of observational studies were critically but not to the However, in the observational studies were the only available evidence in a their quality of evidence was using When or observational study was available to a consensus of the group on the clinical practice was and the recommendation was on expert of recommendation for clinical practice was based on both the available evidence and the risks and benefits to patients. While each recommendation and provided the supporting a by the group and every committee was for their with the recommendation. of consensus was of authors with a particular recommendation. recommendation not this of with a consensus of other recommendations a of of or with all A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM clinical guidelines, this was to review by clinical experts from all the practice that would use the guidelines, both and to the A of the guidelines is in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). A nutrition based on the guidelines on by the for the is in OF authors completed both an A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM of for and was or from were any any of the committee to the of nutrition by nutrition by therapy to of or and to as The of nutrition in the the be is with a in which patients a response with of organ and the three have in the of the and of in in the critically ill nutrition support in the critically ill population was as care to to and support the patient throughout the this strategy to nutrition in which the is to the response to and in the clinical of critical be achieved by and and nutrition support primarily by the is as a strategy that disease severity, in the ICU, and patient the use of a nutrition patients who benefit from nutrition on expert a of nutrition be performed on all patients to the ICU for is to be nutrition those patients to benefit from therapy. have with by critical that to of nutrition and However, in the critically ill always to international consensus group to the of of baseline nutrition have by A.S.P.E.N. and the of and the other nutrition is and by evaluation of baseline nutrition and of disease patients are to an nutrition of However, patients nutrition in an ICU require a nutrition Many and are used to evaluate nutrition status, such as the the the the and the However, only the and the determine both nutrition and disease Although both were based on retrospective have used to nutrition in in critically ill patients are by an 3 and those with a or a is not is available as a for the a nutrition prospective nonrandomized studies that patients nutrition are to benefit from with outcome and than patients nutrition While use and evidence is to date, in these their in the by as to the of and in the additional or when nutrition in critically ill adult on expert that nutritional include an evaluation of of the and of not using nutrition or as are not in critical the critical care the are a of the acute response in and of and not nutrition in the ICU are not in of nutrition or of nutrition therapy of and are and should not be used as is as a to and determine in in the ICU, given of use and A a of and is unless a for other is used to determine be to into nutrition and studies in ICU patients are of is in and are for use in critically ill and be of in the is the for in the critically ill adult that be used to determine when available and in the of that the of of on expert in the of that a published or a be used to determine requirements. for should determine in to the of nutrition therapy. be through published or The of be limited by and in the ICU that the and of include the of or supplemental and therapy and than have published in the literature, with from when to and as in an ICU are in and patients derived from patients are than derived from The of is related to in the critically ill such as and The only of using over other is However, in critically ill patients or in the of or should use or in these provided by and such as should be for when nutrition therapy to target as by to to nutrition While two that met data from that of and were provided in study patients to nutrition therapy was directed by issues with study a recommendation for use of a study of use of nutrition therapy the the of in therapy was directed by the and were but outcome were not evaluated A study in general ICU patients used both and to target by or a While the was than the obtained by only study patients were by an ICU were by of care ICU which to and in the study patients. The toward in study patients to is to in of their with to ICU and of by or by should be than and to and should be used be from in critically ill adult on expert an evaluation of of be the critical care to be the for supporting and For critically ill are than and are not met by of have a with to benefit from The to should be based on an of of be used to of by the of to that when studies are not available to are not for of and should not be used in the critical care in this is the benefit of in critically ill adult patients to or this that nutrition support therapy in the of be in the critically ill patient who is to of the of the by the and the release of as and by and supporting the of and that the and in to such as the and in from of is a that is of the major or The of the include of with for and greater of organ disease in are and the of is to outcome of organ and The specific for are to and the response, and disease of therapy include use of the as a for the of and use of as an for previous data from meta-analysis of trials by a toward when was to of after that A meta-analysis of trials by in and when was on of ICU A meta-analysis of trials by a in and but in organ failure when was of to the ICU, to after that an updated meta-analysis of that met the of all on with on of was with a in and to or nutrition nutrition a in outcome the use of or for adult critically ill the use of over in critically ill patients who require nutrition support therapy. of to the of critically ill patients is and to use of The of to are in a of patient populations in critical including major surgery, and acute While studies have a effect on the outcome effect from is a in and in patient and in and ICU previous to in with use of and were with use of to in of the by of the in the two of nutrition support therapy meta-analysis by a a of with use of to studies patients that met criteria, on which was to be with than ICU was with to by to and were not These in outcome from the of from studies and in the with in medical management and new nutrition nutrition the clinical evidence of to in critically ill adult on expert in the of and patient should be evaluated when of should not be to of The literature the that and evidence of or are not for of in the ICU in of on the and of ICU and postoperative are related to of the and of or etc.) and to in to of patients on are only of and not to or The for of the of is based on studies of which critically ill surgical the and of the of to the or greater disease and with have to have ICU than those with or ICU to with greater number of of days when to days with of of is with a greater number of of A greater number of of as is and clinical is the of of the for critically ill does the of of patient that the of be in the in those critically ill patients for or those who have to of to on expert consensus in critically ill is to in the therapy in the is and the to of The of of the of the tube is in the of the or or the the be by patient ICU and of and the to in critically ill in clinical including and of the data from the that met criteria, trials on with and trials a of to Although the of is in or and of is not via the benefit than nutritional of in adult critically ill on expert that in the of or should be the patient is of be with in patients of the of critical is provided to patients who are to sepsis, and and are for the is a with a retrospective review of patients of those patients of ICU and than those The effect of was in patients with When were for by for was with While be provided with to patients on of should be in patients who are in patients for are or in patients for are to For patients on therapy any of tube or of and should be as of and should be and OF population of patients in the ICU does not require nutrition support therapy over the of on expert that patients who are nutrition with baseline nutrition and disease 3 or who require nutrition therapy over the of in the to the ICU are a group with of nutrition and disease patients with nutrition baseline nutrition status, and disease by an of 3 or a are in the ICU for than a When these patients should be to to nutrition status, and organ Clinical trials of nutrition therapy in critically ill patients of patients with of the of that a lack of nutrition is in not and of in patients who potential of in the ICU patient population any benefit in the in However, patients and their nutrition and disease patients should be their disease severity, or expected the then of therapy. For which population of patients in the ICU is to over the of that or nutrition by is for patients with acute injury and those expected to have a of as these two of have patient over the of of randomized study of a population of patients with acute failure and randomized trial patients with and those expected to have a of of as or to for to days in a of over the of in the ICU than in clinical including and of to to based on The trial for of and the that study patients were critically ill and a in the ICU, nutrition is a lack of data available to determine the benefit of of those patients to be nutrition These patients were in the For these review population of patients in the ICU as to target nutrition in the of should target nutrition be in these on expert that patients who are nutrition or or should be toward as as over for to of or and should be in to the clinical benefit of over the of as or be to and in to but be insufficient to the for therapy in patients. that of be to in and in and to of in injury and to in patients a prospective nonrandomized that patients who nutrition therapy for in and to patients who insufficient therapy No were and insufficient in patients a observational for ICU patients with the of as of with in The was achieved with which provided For was and the of provided a in clinical of adult critically ill that should be are expected to be in the of and be in or patients sections and of studies in critical that of is to than of of the other of and the of by critically ill patients to be than A prospective observational study in patients that of both and was with a in in was when were met prospective observational study in a ICU, a in was with Group Group RCTs, in when a was provided of in the critical care with using Use of or to is of limited in the ICU OF should of be in the adult critically ill on expert that patients should be for of that of should be that a of for the patient the of or should be to of and to be by of and and of patient such as or is by of of and or that than of assessed by for as and than of patients their target their ICU A number of the of in the critical care providers who to only of requirements. of is This of and in patients on only of target from to the of in over of patients for an of of the for which are in of and of all While patient for a of only of this after for and of ICU patients and for to of issues the such as or the for to of patients randomized to surgical general than those patients for was for each be by and for which patients are be used as a for to ICU patients on that not be used as of care to ICU patients on for those are for in the of other of should be of not with of or Although a study that of over with using studies and three other trials using the of every to a trial using a and specific for a of were to be a for with a of a of and a of from that the for to of from a number of to a number of does not the of or the for does not the patient from these Use of to of of and of healthcare and outcome through of studies have that the practice of using of patient three trials, two and prospective trial with to of the trials greater by of or greater in trial but when were a trial in the practice of is a number of be used to critically ill patients on review of and evaluation of clinical for should be and to of should be sections and For those to using care should be in their in the of should and to the of to of but of should not for in the of other of be used in the adult ICU that be and to the of of to on expert that use of a or a be Use of or that and specific for of and or which be or have to be in the of provided in which or are of have to of nutrition These to to for is use the of of to and of individual as over the days of use in with and tube other with in patients who lack of the data from two studies that met use of to patient outcome by the of to was used of be assessed in critically ill patients and be to the of on expert that patients on should be assessed for of and that to of and should be is of the of for be by a number of including to the of a over of care, of the ICU, and use of and of the is with of than and of the of by in patients to be for of to the of of from the to the to the of and was in patients with including when to studies using evidence of to patients on was in ICU of or to on expert that for patients or those to be to of should be to The potential from of to of was in study a toward with to have greater with in of with but with to patient outcome in patients of to such as or be of Adding such as or to improve and of but in in clinical outcome for ICU patients. A of that met using and with were by No was in of or However, were with than with in three that met of have to a to be for to be in patients with For both and be with including and and should be used with including in the have with to therapy with and for greater were the of was in patients therapy clinical from therapy in of are this be Use of through the the of the of the in to improve was in study to the of and the of to and have to of after to date are studies their use as on expert that to of and be all ICU patients the of the should be and use of a should be the of the was in study to the of from to to health with was in two studies to and in patients While studies the use of in general ICU populations have outcome two studies in which care was included in in to would include the of when and of the ICU for and in in the critical care on expert that any be used as a for of on expert that not be used as for in the critical care for are use of a with other such as and have to and with an for was to be with and patient The and through a a against the use of as a for in patients on The basic for the use of in is related to of to be and use is by should with be assessed in the adult critically ill on expert that be for but that be the of in an ICU patient to determine in ICU patients is common but be as the from and in and to the with nutrition in and for the of in clinical the used are or of The to acute and of in of and in and including have an and and and as are and by with a of a in the patient is that have a effect on of are and of should include an of for evaluate for or and review of should be to from OF should be used when in the critically ill on expert using a when in the ICU the use of all in critically ill patients in a and in the For the of patients in an ICU a or to is and be This recommendation is of in that benefit to patient outcome in the literature for the use of in a general ICU including those that are to be disease specific organ specific (pulmonary, renal, or would be the use of an in the postoperative patient in a Use of outcome benefits over in a The for to to to be only with and their of and be used in a of patients on a to benefits such as and have an on clinical for the critically ill patient of the ICU with other including and should not be used in the for these should be for patients with and patients in the sections and of with and for the critically ill the must the patient is a for a While outcome benefits of and of with use of such in a general ICU medical and only a in to in a A meta-analysis of that met that to the have a in the critically ill but the data in the population not support any recommendation for use in of studies, studies, or studies, studies have addressed the individual their specific or their This of literature for the of studies, performed in a of ICU patient with a of and are as or but in their and of individual and are is not the data from published studies be to use of with that have not evaluated. on the of the populations and the in the the Guidelines that recommendation of support in the was with and be used in patients with or a recommendation this the use of an by an and in patients with and given of to have evaluated the use of or with an and in patients with and These studies have based on the of the used in the study by an of with study patients of to a in the for the effect of a in two of the studies all trials based on that use of and does not ICU of organ or to use of a this in of the data, the Guidelines that a with an in patients be used data are adult critically ill are the for or that a not be used in the adult critically ill patient to or of on expert use of a is evidence of both and in patients for or use of in the patient with with or lack of response to patients with other of have such as and benefit from use of a a or a supplement to a are both and of a available in a patient be in a critical care

To determine which proteinases are responsible for the lung destruction characteristic of pulmonary emphysema, macrophage elastase-deficient (MME-/-) mice were subjected to cigarette smoke. In contrast to wild-type mice, MME-/- mice did not have increased numbers of macrophages in their lungs and did not develop emphysema in response to long-term exposure to cigarette smoke. Smoke-exposed MME-/- mice that received monthly intratracheal instillations of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 showed accumulation of alveolar macrophages but did not develop air space enlargement. Thus, macrophage elastase is probably sufficient for the development of emphysema that results from chronic inhalation of cigarette smoke.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.

Treatment is complex for patients with head and neck (H&N) cancers with specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guiding treatment decision-making. Treatment planning for H&N cancers involves a multidisciplinary team of experts. This article describes supportive care recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers, as well as the rationale supporting a new section on imaging recommendations for patients with H&N cancers. This article also describes updates to treatment recommendations for patients with very advanced H&N cancers and salivary gland tumors, specifically systemic therapy recommendations.