Lexington VA Health Care System

BACKGROUND: Although it is generally accepted that lowering elevated serum levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease is beneficial, there are few data to guide decisions about therapy for patients whose primary lipid abnormality is a low level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind trial comparing gemfibrozil (1200 mg per day) with placebo in 2531 men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or less. The primary study outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary causes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.1 years. At one year, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 6 percent higher, the mean triglyceride level was 31 percent lower, and the mean total cholesterol level was 4 percent lower in the gemfibrozil group than in the placebo group. LDL cholesterol levels did not differ significantly between the groups. A primary event occurred in 275 of the 1267 patients assigned to placebo (21.7 percent) and in 219 of the 1264 patients assigned to gemfibrozil (17.3 percent). The overall reduction in the risk of an event was 4.4 percentage points, and the reduction in relative risk was 22 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 7 to 35 percent; P=0.006). We observed a 24 percent reduction in the combined outcome of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (P< 0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, death from any cause, and cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Gemfibrozil therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease whose primary lipid abnormality was a low HDL cholesterol level. The findings suggest that the rate of coronary events is reduced by raising HDL cholesterol levels and lowering levels of triglycerides without lowering LDL cholesterol levels.

To assess the efficacy of surgical resection of brain metastases from extracranial primary cancer, we randomly assigned patients with a single brain metastasis to either surgical removal of the brain tumor followed by radiotherapy (surgical group) or needle biopsy and radiotherapy (radiation group). Forty-eight patients (25 in the surgical group and 23 in the radiation group) formed the study group; 6 other patients (11 percent) were excluded from the study because on biopsy their lesions proved to be either second primary tumors or inflammatory or infectious processes. Recurrence at the site of the original metastasis was less frequent in the surgical group than in the radiation group (5 of 25 [20 percent] vs. 12 of 23 [52 percent]; P less than 0.02). The overall length of survival was significantly longer in the surgical group (median, 40 weeks vs. 15 weeks in the radiation group; P less than 0.01), and the patients treated with surgery remained functionally independent longer (median, 38 weeks vs. 8 weeks in the radiation group; P less than 0.005). We conclude that patients with cancer and a single metastasis to the brain who receive treatment with surgical resection plus radiotherapy live longer, have fewer recurrences of cancer in the brain, and have a better quality of life than similar patients treated with radiotherapy alone.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

Ultrastructural studies of biopsied cortical tissue from the right frontal lobe of 8 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) revealed that the number of synapses in lamina III of Brodmann's area 9 was significantly decreased when compared with the number in age-matched control brains (n = 9; postmortem time, less than 13 hours). Further decline in synaptic number was seen in age-matched autopsied AD specimens. In the AD brains there was significant enlargement of the mean apposition length, which correlated with degree of synapse loss; as synapse density declined, synapse size increased. The enlargement of synapses, coupled with the decrease in synaptic number, allowed the total synaptic contact area per unit volume to remain stable in the patients who underwent biopsy. In autopsied subjects who had AD, there was no further enlargement of mean synaptic contact area. There was a significant correlation between synapse counts and scores on the Mini-Mental State examination in the patients who underwent biopsy. Lower mental status scores were associated with greater loss of synapses. Choline acetyltransferase activity was significantly decreased in the biopsied group and declined further in the autopsied specimens of AD. There was no relationship between choline acetyltransferase activity and scores on the Mini-Mental State examination or synapse number. There is evidence of neural plasticity in the AD neuropil; synaptic contact size increased in patients who had biopsy and possibly compensated for the numerical loss of synapses. But by end stage of the disease, the ability of the cortex to compensate was exceeded and both synapse number and synaptic contact area declined.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia increase with age in association with a progressive decline in cell-mediated immunity to varicella-zoster virus (VZV). We tested the hypothesis that vaccination against VZV would decrease the incidence, severity, or both of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia among older adults. METHODS: We enrolled 38,546 adults 60 years of age or older in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational live attenuated Oka/Merck VZV vaccine ("zoster vaccine"). Herpes zoster was diagnosed according to clinical and laboratory criteria. The pain and discomfort associated with herpes zoster were measured repeatedly for six months. The primary end point was the burden of illness due to herpes zoster, a measure affected by the incidence, severity, and duration of the associated pain and discomfort. The secondary end point was the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. RESULTS: More than 95 percent of the subjects continued in the study to its completion, with a median of 3.12 years of surveillance for herpes zoster. A total of 957 confirmed cases of herpes zoster (315 among vaccine recipients and 642 among placebo recipients) and 107 cases of postherpetic neuralgia (27 among vaccine recipients and 80 among placebo recipients) were included in the efficacy analysis. The use of the zoster vaccine reduced the burden of illness due to herpes zoster by 61.1 percent (P<0.001), reduced the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia by 66.5 percent (P<0.001), and reduced the incidence of herpes zoster by 51.3 percent (P<0.001). Reactions at the injection site were more frequent among vaccine recipients but were generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: The zoster vaccine markedly reduced morbidity from herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia among older adults.

BACKGROUND: In laboratory animals, the consumption of soy protein, rather than animal protein, decreases serum cholesterol concentrations, but studies in humans have been inconclusive. In this meta-analysis of 38 controlled clinical trials, we examined the relation between soy protein consumption and serum lipid concentrations in humans. METHODS: We used a random-effects model to quantify the average effects of soy protein intake on serum lipids in the studies we examined and used hierarchical mixed-effects regression models to predict variation as a function of the characteristics of the studies. RESULTS: In most of the studies, the intake of energy, fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol was similar when the subjects ingested control and soy-containing diets; soy protein intake averaged 47 g per day. Ingestion of soy protein was associated with the following net changes in serum lipid concentrations from the concentrations reached with the control diet: total cholesterol, a decrease of 23.2 mg per deciliter (0.60 mmol per liter); 95 percent confidence interval, 13.5 to 32.9 mg per deciliter [0.35 to 0.85 mmol per liter]), or 9.3 percent; low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, a decrease of 21.7 mg per deciliter (0.56 mmol per liter); 95 percent confidence interval, 11.2 to 31.7 mg per deciliter [0.30 to 0.82 mmol per liter]), or 12.9 percent; and triglycerides, a decrease of 13.3 mg per deciliter (0.15 mmol per liter; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 25.7 mg per deciliter [0.003 to 0.29 mmol per liter]), or 10.5 percent. The changes in serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations were directly related to the initial serum cholesterol concentration (P < 0.001). The ingestion of soy protein was associated with a nonsignificant 2.4 percent increase in serum concentrations of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis we found that the consumption of soy protein rather than animal protein significantly decreased serum concentrations of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides without significantly affecting serum HDL cholesterol concentrations.

CONTEXT: For the treatment of a single metastasis to the brain, surgical resection combined with postoperative radiotherapy is more effective than treatment with radiotherapy alone. However, the efficacy of postoperative radiotherapy after complete surgical resection has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine if postoperative radiotherapy resulted in improved neurologic control of disease and increased survival. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial. SETTING: University-affiliated cancer treatment facilities. PATIENTS: Ninety-five patients who had single metastases to the brain that were treated with complete surgical resections (as verified by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging) between September 1989 and November 1997 were entered into the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with postoperative whole-brain radiotherapy (radiotherapy group, 49 patients) or no further treatment (observation group, 46 patients) for the brain metastasis, with median follow-up of 48 weeks and 43 weeks, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was recurrence of tumor in the brain; secondary end points were length of survival, cause of death, and preservation of ability to function independently. RESULTS: Recurrence of tumor anywhere in the brain was less frequent in the radiotherapy group than in the observation group (9 [18%] of 49 vs 32 [70%] of 46; P<.001). Postoperative radiotherapy prevented brain recurrence at the site of the original metastasis (5 [10%] of 49 vs 21 [46%] of 46; P<.001) and at other sites in the brain (7 [14%] of 49 vs 17 [37%] of 46; P<.01). Patients in the radiotherapy group were less likely to die of neurologic causes than patients in the observation group (6 [14%] of 43 who died vs 17 [44%] of 39; P=.003). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in overall length of survival or the length of time that patients remained functionally independent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer and single metastases to the brain who receive treatment with surgical resection and postoperative radiotherapy have fewer recurrences of cancer in the brain and are less likely to die of neurologic causes than similar patients treated with surgical resection alone.

IDEC-C2B8 is a chimeric monoclonal antibody (MoAb) directed against the B-cell-specific antigen CD20 expressed on non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL). The MoAb mediates complement and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and has direct antiproliferative effects against malignant B-cell lines in vitro. Phase I trials of single doses up to 500 mg/m2 and 4 weekly doses of 375 mg/m2 showed clinical responses with no dose-limiting toxicity. We conducted a phase II, multicenter study evaluating four weekly infusions of 375 mg/m2 IDEC-C2B8 in patients with relapsed low-grade or follicular NHL (Working Formulation groups A-D). Patients were monitored for adverse events, antibody pharmacokinetics, and clinical response. Thirty-seven patients with a median age of 58 years (range, 29 to 81 years) were treated. All patients had relapsed after chemotherapy (median of 2 prior regimens) and 54% had failed aggressive chemotherapy. Infusional side effects (grade 1-2) consisting of mild fever, chills, respiratory symptoms, and occasionally hypotension were observed mostly with the initial antibody infusion and were rare with subsequent doses. Peripheral blood B-cell depletion occurred rapidly, with recovery beginning 6 months posttreatment. There were no significant changes in mean IgG levels and infections were not increased over what would be expected in this population. Clinical remissions were observed in 17 patients (3 complete remissions and 14 partial remissions), yielding an intent to treat response rate of 46%. The onset of these tumor responses was as soon as 1 month posttreatment and reached a maximum by 4 months posttreatment. In the 17 responders, the median time to progression was 10.2 months (5 patients exceeding 20 months). Likelihood of tumor response was associated with a follicular histology, with the ability to sustain a high serum level of antibody after the first infusion, and with a longer duration of remission to prior chemotherapy. One patient developed a detectable but not quantifiable immune response to the antibody that had no clinical significance. IDEC-C2B8 in a dose of 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks has antitumor activity in patients with relapsed low-grade or follicular NHL. Results with this brief, outpatient treatment compare favorably with results with standard chemotherapy, and IDEC-C2B8 has a better safety profile. Further studies evaluating IDEC-C2B8 in other types of lymphoma either alone or combined with chemotherapy are warranted.

The relationship between Alzheimer disease (AD) and aging is not currently known. In this study, postmortem frontal- and occipital-pole brain samples were obtained from 16 subjects with AD, 8 age-matched controls, and 5 young controls. These samples were analyzed both for protein oxidation products (carbonyl) and the activities of two enzymes vulnerable to mixed-function oxidation, glutamine synthetase and creatine kinase. Glutamine synthetase is more sensitive to mixed-function oxidation than creatine kinase. Carbonyl content rises exponentially with age, at double the rate in the frontal pole compared with the occipital pole. Compared with young controls, both aged groups (AD and age-matched controls) have increased carbonyl content and decreased glutamine synthetase and creatine kinase activities, which are more marked in the frontal than occipital pole in all instances. We conclude that protein oxidation products accumulate in the brain and that oxidation-vulnerable enzyme activities decrease with aging in the same regional pattern (frontal more affected than occipital). However, only glutamine synthetase activity distinguishes AD from age-matched controls: Because glutamine synthetase activity is differentially reduced in the frontal pole in AD, we suggest that AD may represent a specific brain vulnerability to age-related oxidation.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary pancreatitis is an autosomal-dominant disease, with a variable expression and an estimated penetrance of 80%. The gene for this disease has recently been mapped to chromosome 7q35, and the defect is believed to be caused by a mutation in the cationic trypsinogen gene. Acute attacks of abdominal pain begin early in life and the disease often progresses to chronic pancreatitis. Although the risk of pancreatic cancer is thought to be increased in more common types of chronic pancreatitis, the frequency of pancreatic cancer in the inherited type of pancreatitis is uncertain. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of pancreatic cancer and other tumors in patients with hereditary form of pancreatitis. METHODS: To determine the natural history of hereditary pancreatitis, we invited all members of the American Pancreatic Association and the International Association of Pancreatology to participate in a longitudinal study of this rare form of pancreatitis. The initial criteria for patient eligibility were as follows: early age (< or = 30 years) at onset of symptoms, positive family history, and absence of other causes. From April 1995 through February 1996, 37 physicians from 10 countries contributed medical records of 246 (125 males and 121 females) patients thought to have hereditary pancreatitis as the most likely diagnosis. This group included 218 patients where the diagnosis appeared to be highly probable and 28 additional patients where the diagnosis of hereditary pancreatitis was less certain: 25 patients who had relatively late onset of disease and a positive family history and three patients with onset of disease before age 30 years but with an uncertain family history. We reviewed all causes of death and compared the observed to the expected frequency of cancer in this historical cohort of patients with hereditary pancreatitis. The strength of the association between pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was estimated by the standardized incidence ratio (SIR), which is the ratio of observed pancreatic cancer cases in the cohort to the expected pancreatic cancers in the background population, adjusted for age, sex, and country. RESULTS: The mean age (+/- standard deviation [SD]) at onset of symptoms of pancreatitis was 13.9 +/- 12.2 years. Compared with an expected number of 0.150, eight pancreatic adenocarcinomas developed (mean age +/- SD at diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: 56.9 +/- 11.2 years) during 8531 person-years of follow-up, yielding an SIR of 53 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 23-105). The frequency of other tumors was not increased: SIR = 0.7 (95% CI = 0.3-1.6). Eight of 20 reported deaths in the cohort were from pancreatic cancer. Thirty members of the cohort have already been tested for the defective hereditary pancreatitis gene: all 30 carry a mutated copy of the trypsinogen gene. The transmission pattern of hereditary pancreatitis was known for 168 of 238 patients without pancreatic cancer and six of eight with pancreatic cancer. Ninety-nine of the 238 patients without pancreatic cancer and six of the patients with pancreatic cancer inherited the disease through the paternal side of the family. The estimated cumulative risk of pancreatic cancer to age 70 years in patients with hereditary pancreatitis approaches 40%. For patients with a paternal inheritance pattern, the cumulative risk of pancreatic cancer is approximately 75%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hereditary pancreatitis have a high risk of pancreatic cancer several decades after the initial onset of pancreatitis. A paternal inheritance pattern increases the probability of developing pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Necropsy studies demonstrate that coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently complex and eccentric. However, angiography provides only a silhouette of the vessel lumen. Intravascular ultrasound is a new tomographic imaging method for evaluation of coronary dimensions and wall morphology. Few data exist regarding intravascular ultrasound in patients with CAD, and no data exist for subjects with normal coronaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a multielement 5.5F, 20-MHz ultrasound catheter to examine eight normal subjects and 43 patients with CAD. We assessed the safety of coronary ultrasound and the effect of vessel eccentricity on comparison of minimum luminal diameter by angiography and ultrasound. Normal and atherosclerotic wall morphology and stenosis severity were also evaluated by intravascular ultrasound. The only untoward effect was transient coronary spasm in five patients. At 33 sites in normal subjects, the lumen was nearly circular, yielding a close correlation between angiographic and ultrasonic minimum diameter (r = 0.92). At 90 sites in patients with CAD, ultrasound demonstrated a concentric cross section; correlation was also close (r = 0.93). However, at 72 eccentric sites, correlation was not as close (r = 0.77). For 41 stenoses, correlation between angiography and ultrasound for area reduction was moderate (r = 0.63). In normal subjects, wall morphology revealed a thin (0.30 mm or less) intimal leading edge and subadjacent sonolucent zone (0.20 mm or less). Patients with CAD exhibited increased thickness and echogenicity of the leading edge, thickened sonolucent zones, and/or attenuation of ultrasound transmission. CONCLUSIONS: These data establish that intravascular ultrasound is feasible and safe and yields luminal measurements that correlate generally with angiography. Differences between angiographic and ultrasound measures of lumen size in eccentric vessels probably reflect the dissimilar perspectives of tomographic and silhouette imaging techniques. Intravascular ultrasound provides detailed images of normal and abnormal wall morphology not previously possible in vivo.

Zygomycosis, an infection that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, is becoming common in immunocompromised patients. Posaconazole is a new extended-spectrum azole antifungal that has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo activity against zygomycetes. This report provides the results from the first 24 patients with active zygomycosis who were enrolled in two open-label, nonrandomized, multicentered compassionate trials that evaluated oral posaconazole as salvage therapy for invasive fungal infections. Posaconazole was usually given as an oral suspension of 200 mg four times a day or 400 mg twice a day. Eleven (46%) of the infections were rhinocerebral. Duration of posaconazole therapy ranged from 8 to 1,004 days (mean, 292 days; median, 182 days). Rates of successful treatment (complete cure and partial response) were 79% in 19 subjects with zygomycosis refractory to standard therapy and 80% in 5 subjects with intolerance to standard therapy. Overall, 19 of 24 subjects (79%) survived infection. Survival was also associated with surgical resection of affected tissue and stabilization or improvement of the subjects' underlying illnesses. Failures either had worsening of underlying illnesses or requested all therapy withdrawn; none of the failures received more than 31 days of posaconazole. Posaconazole oral solution was well tolerated and was discontinued in only one subject due to a drug rash. Posaconazole appears promising as an oral therapy for zygomycosis in patients who receive required surgery and control their underlying illness.

Tumor necrosis factor is a cytokine that mediates many of the biologic actions of endotoxin. Recent studies have shown that tumor necrosis factor administration may cause liver injury and that tumor necrosis factor may mediate the lethality of the hepatotoxin galactosamine. One of the most potent inducers of tumor necrosis factor production is endotoxin. Because patients with alcoholic liver disease frequently have endotoxemia and because many of the clinical manifestations of alcoholic hepatitis are known biologic actions of tumor necrosis factor, we thought it would be important to evaluate tumor necrosis factor activity in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Basal and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated tumor necrosis factor release from peripheral blood monocytes, a major source of tumor necrosis factor production, was determined in 16 patients with alcoholic hepatitis and 16 healthy volunteers. Eight of 16 alcoholic hepatitis patients and only two of 16 healthy volunteers had detectable spontaneous tumor necrosis factor activity (p less than 0.05). After lipopolysaccharide stimulation, mean monocyte tumor necrosis factor release from alcoholic hepatitis patients was significantly increased to over twice that of healthy controls (25.3 +/- 3.7 vs. 10.9 +/- 2.4 units per ml, p less than 0.005). We conclude that monocytes from alcoholic hepatitis patients have significantly increased spontaneous and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated tumor necrosis factor release compared to monocytes from healthy volunteers. We suggest that some of the metabolic abnormalities and possibly some of the liver injury of alcoholic hepatitis may be due to enhanced tumor necrosis factor production.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of implementing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) methodology in non-VA hospitals. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Using data adjusted for patient preoperative risk, the NSQIP compares the performance of all VA hospitals performing major surgery and anonymously compares these hospitals using the ratio of observed to expected adverse events. These results are provided to each hospital and used to identify areas for improvement. Since the NSQIP's inception in 1994, the VA has reported consistent improvements in all surgery performance measures. Given the success of the NSQIP within the VA, as well as the lack of a comparable system in non-VA hospitals, this pilot study was undertaken to test the applicability of the NSQIP models and methodology in the nonfederal sector. METHODS: Beginning in 1999, three academic medical centers (Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY) volunteered the time of a dedicated surgical nurse reviewer who was trained in NSQIP methodology. At each academic center, these nurse reviewers used NSQIP protocols to abstract clinical data from general surgery and vascular surgery patients. Data were manually collected and then transmitted via the Internet to a secure web site developed by the NSQIP. These data were compared to the data for general and vascular surgery patients collected during a concurrent time period (10/99 to 9/00) within the VA by the NSQIP. Logistic regression models were developed for both non-VA and VA hospital data. To assess the models' predictive values, C-indices (0.5 = no prediction; 1.0 = perfect prediction) were calculated after applying the models to the non-VA as well as the VA databases. RESULTS: Data from 2,747 (general surgery 2,251; vascular surgery 496) non-VA hospital cases were compared to data from 41,360 (general surgery 31,393; vascular surgery 9,967) VA cases. The bivariate relationships between individual risk factors and 30-day mortality or morbidity were similar in the non-VA and VA patient populations for over 66% of the risk variables. C-indices of 0.942 (general surgery), 0.915 (vascular surgery), and 0.934 (general plus vascular surgery) were obtained following application of the VA NSQIP mortality model to the non-VA patient data. Lower C-indices (0.778, general surgery; 0.638, vascular surgery; 0.760, general plus vascular surgery) were obtained following application of the VA NSQIP morbidity model to the non-VA patient data. Although the non-VA sample size was smaller than the VA, preliminary analysis suggested no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between the non-VA and VA cohorts. CONCLUSIONS With some adjustments, the NSQIP methodology can be implemented and generates reasonable predictive models within non-VA hospitals.

Recurrent Clostridium difficile disease (CDD) is a difficult clinical problem because antibiotic therapy often does not prevent further recurrences. In a previous study, the biotherapeutic agent Saccharomyces boulardii was used in combination with standard antibiotics and was found to be effective in reducing subsequent recurrences of CDD. In an effort to further refine a standard regimen, we tested patients receiving a regimen of a standard antibiotic for 10 days and then added either S. boulardii (1 g/day for 28 days) or placebo. A significant decrease in recurrences was observed only in patients treated with high-dose vancomycin (2 g/day) and S. boulardii (16.7%), compared with those who received high-dose vancomycin and placebo (50%; P=.05). No serious adverse reactions were observed in these patients. Comparison of data from this trial with data from previous studies indicates that recurrent CDD may respond to a short course of high-dose vancomycin or to longer courses of low-dose vancomycin when either is combined with S. boulardii.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has developed guidelines for the use of the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. These recommendations are based on a formal review of the available evidence. They address the use of prophylactic HPV vaccines, including who should be vaccinated and at what age, as well as a summary of policy and implementation issues. Implications for screening are also discussed.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The study goal was to identify potential risk factors for peripartum or postpartum stroke and intracranial venous thrombosis. METHODS: Data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were analyzed for the years 1993 and 1994. Observed values were weighted with poststratification discharge weights to project to the universe of all discharges from community hospitals located in the United States. Nationally representative estimates of risk were calculated on the basis of age, race, mode of delivery, income, third-party payer, hospital size, hospital ownership, hospital location (rural versus urban), hospital teaching status, census region, and presence of specific complications. Multivariate models were developed with the use of logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1 408 015 sampled deliveries, there were 183 observed cases of peripartum stroke and 170 cases of peripartum intracranial venous thrombosis in 17 states in the United States in 1993 and 1994. There were an estimated 975 cases of stroke and 864 cases of intracranial venous thrombosis during pregnancy and the puerperium in the United States among 7 463 712 deliveries during 1993 and 1994, for estimated risks of 13.1 cases of peripartum stroke and 11.6 cases of peripartum intracranial venous thrombosis per 100 000 deliveries. Multivariate analysis showed that the following were strongly and significantly associated with both peripartum and postpartum stroke: cesarean delivery; fluid, electrolyte, and acid-base disorders; and hypertension. Covariates that were strongly and significantly associated with both peripartum and postpartum intracranial venous thrombosis included cesarean delivery, hypertension, and infections other than pneumonia and influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy-related hypertension and cesarean delivery are important risk factors for both stroke or intracranial venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Obesity is frequently associated with cirrhosis, and cirrhotic patients may develop simultaneous loss of skeletal muscle and gain of adipose tissue, culminating in the condition of sarcopenic obesity. Additionally, muscle depletion is characterized by both a reduction in muscle size and increased proportion of muscular fat, termed myosteatosis. In this study, we aimed to establish the frequency and clinical significance of sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: We analysed 678 patients with cirrhosis. Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis were analysed by CT scan using the third lumbar vertebrae skeletal muscle and attenuation indexes, using previously validated gender-and body mass index-specific cutoffs. RESULTS: Patients were predominately men (n = 457, 67%), and cirrhosis aetiology was hepatitis C virus in 269 patients (40%), alcohol in 153 (23%), non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/cryptogenic in 96 (14%), autoimmune liver disease in 55 (8%), hepatitis B virus in 43 (6%), and others in 5 patients (1%). Sarcopenia was present in 292 (43%), 135 had sarcopenic obesity (20%) and 353 had myosteatosis (52%). Patients with sarcopenia (22 ± 3 vs. 95 ± 22 months, P < 0.001), sarcopenic obesity (22 ± 3 vs. 95 ± 22 months, P < 0.001), and myosteatosis (28 ± 5 vs. 95 ± 22 months, P < 0.001) had worse median survival than patients without muscular abnormalities. By multivariate Cox regression analysis, both sarcopenia [hazard ratio (HR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-2.77, P < 0.001], and myosteatosis (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, P = 0.04) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity and myosteatosis are often present in patients with cirrhosis, and sarcopenia and myosteatosis are independently associated with a higher long-term mortality in cirrhosis.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide guidance on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis, based on systematic summary and assessment of relevant literature. This executive summary reviews the history, scope, methodology, and major recommendations of the guidelines, focusing on aspects that are new or different compared with the 2016 guidelines that were published in 2017. Full description of the guidelines process and recommendations are provided in the complete guidelines document. HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINES The SSC first published guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in 2004. Updates were published in 2008, 2012, and 2017. The guidelines are sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), with methodological support by the Guidelines in Intensive Care Development and Evaluation (GUIDE) group, and endorsement by 24 additional societies. There is no funding from any industry partner. Panel membership, patient involvement, and conflict of interest management are discussed in the complete guidelines document. The guidelines provide recommendations on the management of sepsis, focusing on aspects of care specific to sepsis and limiting duplication with other guidelines wherever possible. It is not intended to replace clinical judgement, which must account for the unique circumstances of an individual patient. Following the recommendation of SCCM and ESICM, there are now separate guidelines for sepsis in children (1). The SSC also published separate guidelines specific to the management of COVID (2,3). The 2021 guidelines largely apply to high-resource settings but discuss applicability of the recommendations to lower-resource settings as data allow. The SSC also creates sepsis bundles (4) (a selected set of interventions or processes of care distilled from evidence-based practice guidelines) to facilitate quality improvement and implementation of guidelines recommendations. However, the bundles are developed via a separate process and published separately from the guidelines. Definitions The guidelines recognize sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection consistent with the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (5). However, studies were not required to use a particular sepsis definition to be considered as relevant evidence for the guidelines. Question Development and Outcome Prioritization Guidelines questions were selected based on panel rating, clinical practice variability, and inclusion in prior SSC guidelines, and then assigned to one of six SSC adult guidelines working groups: screening and initial resuscitation; infection; hemodynamics; ventilation; additional therapies; and goals of care and long-term outcomes. Clinical practice variation was identified through a global survey of SCCM and ESICM members regarding their current practice and how it related to previous recommendations. All questions were structured in the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format. For each question, relevant outcomes were enumerated and ranked prior to the literature search. Search Strategy and Evidence Summation Professional librarians drafted and executed the search strategy for each PICO question (or group of similar questions), with input from subgroup members. Only English language studies published before May 2019 were included (the lag was the result of the guideline review and approval process coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic). For PICO questions addressed in the 2016 guidelines, the search strategy was revised and updated. Reviewers in the systematic review team, with input from methodologists and experts, screened article titles and abstracts to identify the highest quality evidence, particularly recent randomized controlled trials and high-quality systematic reviews. When new or updated meta-analyses were required, relevant data were abstracted with emphasis on intention-to-treat data where possible and conventional meta-analytic techniques were used to produce pooled estimates. Quality of Evidence and Formulation of Recommendations Using the GRADE approach, methodologists and panelists assessed the quality of evidence for each PICO question as high, moderate, low, or very low. Using the Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework (6), each subgroup drafted preliminary recommendations for their assigned PICO questions. The EtD framework took into account not only the magnitude of effect and quality of evidence, but also patient values, resources and cost, equity, acceptability, and feasibility (6). The strength of each recommendation was informed by the quality of the evidence and other components of the EtD framework. Strong recommendations (signified by “we recommend”) reflect high confidence that the desirable effects of adhering to a recommendation clearly outweigh undesirable effects. Weak recommendations (signified by “we suggest”) indicate that desirable effects likely outweigh undesirable effects. Best practice statements (BPSs) reflect ungraded strong recommendations and are used sparingly when benefit or harm is unequivocal, but evidence is difficult to summarize or assess according to GRADE methodology (7). Voting Progress Preliminary recommendations were discussed during face-to-face meetings and revised based on panel feedback prior to electronic voting by panel members who had no conflicts of interest. The a priori threshold for acceptance was having votes cast by at least 75% of the panel and 80% agreement among those who cast a vote. Up to three rounds of voting were allowed per PICO question. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the SSC 2021 guidelines update are summarized in Table 1 of the full guidelines document. There are 93 total statements, which address screening and initial resuscitation (n = 10 statements), infection (n = 21), hemodynamics (n = 14), ventilation (n = 12), additional therapies (n = 16), and goals of care and long-term outcomes (n = 20). Of the 93 statements, 15 are strong (16%) and 54 are weak (58%) recommendations, 15 are best practice statements (16%), and 9 are statements declaring ‘no recommendation’ (10%). Of the 15 strong recommendations, all but one are based on moderate or high-quality evidence. Selected recommendations that are new or revised from the 2016 guidelines are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. - Selected New and/or Revised Recommendations in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 Recommendation 2021 Recommendation Rationale for Change We recommend that in the resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hours. For patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. This panel downgraded this recommendation from a strong recommendation to a weak recommendation based on the low quality of the evidence. There are no prospective intervention studies comparing different volumes for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. However, a retrospective analysis of adults presenting to an emergency department with sepsis or septic shock showed that failure to receive 30mL/kg of crystalloid fluid therapy within 3 hours of sepsis onset was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (10). Furthermore, the average volume of fluid received pre-randomization the PROCESS (11), PROMISE (12), and ARISE (13) trials was in the range of 30 mL/kg, suggesting this fluid volume has been adopted in routine clinical practice (14). We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloid instead of normal saline for resuscitation. There are many, increasingly recognized potential adverse effects of normal saline including hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis. A network meta-analysis showed in an indirect comparison that balanced fluids were associated with decreased mortality compared with saline (15). In the 2018 SMART single-center cluster-randomized RCT comparing saline to balance fluid, the pre-specified subgroup of patients admitted with sepsis experienced lower 30-day mortality when randomized to balanced fluids versus saline (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67, 0.94) (16). Not addressed For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Prompt initiation of vasopressors is an integral component of septic shock management. Vasopressors have been traditionally administered via central venous access due to concerns of extravasation and local tissue injury and ischemia. However, placement of central venous access requires specialized expertise and is time consuming, potentially leading to delays in administration. A recent systematic review showed that peripheral administration of vasopressors is generally safe, particularly if infused distally to the antecubital fossa and for short periods of time (< 6 hr) (17, 18). Peripheral administration of vasopressors is associated with shorter time to administration and faster time to achieving a MAP > 65 mm Hg (19). Not addressed For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. A 2017 single center before and after study reported reduced mortality with administration of high-dose Vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine among patients with sepsis and sepsis shock (20). However, an updated meta-analysis by the guideline panel found no association between vitamin C and reduced mortality. We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat patients with septic shock if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy can restore hemodynamic stability. If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IVcorticosteroids. Since the 2016 guideline, three large RCTs have been published (21–23). An updated meta-analysis found systemic corticosteroid to accelerate resolution of shock (MD, 1.52 days; 95% CI, 1.71 to 1.32) and increase vasopressor-free days (MD, 1.5 days; 95% CI, 0.8 to 3.11 days) (24). However, corticosteroid use increased neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.45), without a clear effect on short- or long-term mortality (24). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The panel judged the desirable effects (shock resolution, vasopressor-free days) to outweigh the undesirable effects. This observation, combined with consideration of the resources required, cost of the intervention, and feasibility supported a weak recommendation in favor of using low-dose corticosteroid therapy in septic shock. Not addressed For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Given the prevalence of new and worsening physical, cognitive, and emotional problems experienced by sepsis survivors, we recommend assessment and follow-up of these problems after discharge. Screening and Initial Resuscitation The guidelines recommend that hospitals use a performance improvement program for sepsis, including screening of high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for management. The guidelines recognize sepsis as a medical emergency and recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. For initial resuscitation in patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock, the guidelines suggest 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid. This recommendation was downgraded from a strong recommendation to a weak recommendation based on the low quality of evidence. Additionally, the guidelines suggest resuscitation be guided by dynamic over static measures, target a decrease in serum lactate, and use capillary refill as an adjunct measure of perfusion. New to this update, the guidelines recommend against qSOFA as a sole screening tool and suggest that patients who are determined to need intensive care be admitted to an ICU within 6 hours. Infection As in the 2016 guidelines, the 2021 guidelines again recommend delivering antimicrobials as soon as possible, ideally within 1 hour of sepsis recognition. The 2021 guidelines provide additional guidance on initiation of antimicrobials, recognizing the challenge of diagnostic uncertainty early in a patient’s presentation. The guidelines now stratify antimicrobial timing recommendations based on the likelihood of sepsis and presence of shock (Figure 1). For patients with probable sepsis or with shock resulting from possible or probable sepsis, the guidelines recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hour of recognition. For patients with possible sepsis but without shock, the guidelines recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infection versus non-infectious illness. If concern for infection persists after a time-limited course of rapid investigation, then antimicrobials should be administered within 3 hours from when sepsis was first recognized. Finally, for patients with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, the guidelines suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient.Figure 1.: 2021 Recommendations of the initiation of antimicrobials.The guidelines include several additional recommendations regarding antimicrobial therapy for sepsis. Given the heterogeneity of infectious pathogens, sites of infection, severity of illness, local resistance patterns, and other patient and contextual factors, specific treatment recommendations are beyond the scope of the guidelines. However, the guidelines provide a framework for approaching antimicrobial therapy. They suggest that use of empiric coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), empiric double-coverage for gram-negative pathogens, and empiric coverage for fungal pathogens be determined based on patient and contextual risk factors. The guidelines provide several recommendations for optimizing antibiotic dosing, addressing source control, and determining duration of antimicrobial therapy. Hemodynamics The guidelines recommend crystalloid fluids as a first line for resuscitation, and new in this update, suggest balanced crystalloids over normal saline. For patients with septic shock, the guidelines recommend norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor and suggest that vasopressors be started peripherally to avoid delays in administration in the absence of central venous access. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding the use of a restrictive versus liberal fluid strategy after the initial fluid resuscitation, and this remains an important area for future research. As in the 2016 guidelines, albumin is suggested in patients who have received large volumes of crystalloid. Ventilation The guidelines recommend a low tidal volume ventilation strategy with limitation of plateau pressure for patients with sepsis-associated ARDS and the use of prone positioning in moderate-to-severe ARDS, and suggest a low tidal volume approach for all patients with sepsis-induced respiratory failure. The guidelines suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers but recommend against an incremental PEEP strategy. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding use of liberal versus conservative oxygen targets; this remains an important area for future research. Additional Therapies To limit overlap with other guidelines and create space for a new section focused on long-term outcomes, PICOs on additional therapies were reduced from prior SSC guidelines. However, there are some noteworthy new recommendations regarding adjunctive therapies. In contrast to the 2016 guidelines, the 2021 guidelines suggest the use of IV corticosteroids for patients with an ongoing need for vasopressor therapy based on newer clinical trial data. Additionally, the guidelines suggest against using IV vitamin C for sepsis or septic shock based on recent randomized controlled trials and an updated meta-analysis showing no impact on mortality. Goals of Care and Long-Term Outcomes As acute survival from sepsis has improved, a growing number of sepsis survivors leave the hospital alive—many of whom experience long-term morbidity and a heightened risk for adverse health outcomes including mortality in the months and years following sepsis (8). Indeed, the 2017 World Health Organization resolution on sepsis called for improving outcomes of sepsis survivors and addressing survivors’ access to rehabilitation (9). Given the burden of long-term morbidity and mortality stemming from sepsis, the SSC guidelines now include a section dedicated to the longer-term recovery from sepsis. To enhance recovery, the guidelines recommend screening for economic and social support for patient and families, involving patients and families in shared decision-making regarding discharge planning, reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge, including information about sepsis and common impairment after sepsis in the discharge summary, and assessing for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. The guidelines suggest having a critical care transitional program during ICU stay to floor transitions, using a handoff process during transitions of care, offering verbal and written sepsis education, and referring patients to peer support programs, post-critical illness follow-up programs (if available), and post-hospital rehabilitation programs (for selected survivors). There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding early cognitive rehabilitation or timing of post-hospital follow up. While many of these recommendations are generally applicable to critically ill and hospitalized patients, the panel deemed them necessary to include in the sepsis guidelines given the burden of long-term morbidity and mortality due to sepsis. CONCLUSIONS This executive summary highlights the most novel aspects of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021 that clinicians and stakeholders should consider when caring for adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. The recommendation rationales, informed by rigorous data evaluation, discussion by panelists, and input from patients, provide deeper insight into each recommendation. We believe that the 2021 SSC guidelines will foster the delivery of best practices for sepsis evaluation and management, as well as highlight aspects of management where additional evidence is needed most urgently.

This paper reviews a humanistic risk management policy that includes early injury review, steadfast maintenance of the relationship between the hospital and the patient, proactive full disclosure to patients who have been injured because of accidents or medical negligence, and fair compensation for injuries. The financial consequences of this type of policy are not yet known; however, one Veterans Affairs medical center, which has been using humanistic risk management since 1987, has had encouragingly moderate liability payments. The Department of Veterans Affairs now requires such a policy for all of its facilities; therefore, comprehensive experience may be only a few years away.