POINT: Should the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Be Retired? Yes

Chest: The Journal of Circulation, Respiration and Related Systems

Rory Spiegel^3¹  Scott Weingart^4²  Paul E. Marik^1³  Joshua D. Farkas^2⁴ 

[1] Department Emergency Medicine, Critical Care Fellow Division of Pulmonary Critical Care University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD^3;Department Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY^4;Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA^1;Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington VT^2

关键词: COI;    conflict of interest;    ESICM;    European Society of Intensive Care Medicine;    IDSA;    Infectious Disease Society of America;    IHI;    Institute for Healthcare Improvement;    ISF;    International Sepsis Forum;    RCT;    randomized controlled trial;    SSC;    Surviving Sepsis Campaign;    SCCM;    Society of Critical Care Medicine;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.008

学科分类：呼吸医学

来源: American College of Chest Physicians

【 摘 要 】

Concern regarding the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines dates to their inception. Guideline development was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Edwards Life Sciences as part of a commercial marketing campaign.¹ Throughout its history, the SSC has a track record of making strong recommendations based on weak evidence and being poorly responsive to new evidence.^2-4 The original backbone of the guidelines was a single-center trial by Rivers et al⁵ defining a protocol for early goal-directed therapy.

【 授权许可】

CC BY