TY - JOUR
T1 - Septic shock
T2 - Advances in diagnosis and treatment
AU - Seymour, Christopher W.
AU - Rosengart, Matthew R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2015 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/8/18
Y1 - 2015/8/18
N2 - Importance: Septic shock is a clinical emergency that occurs in more than 230 000 US patients each year. Observations and Advances: In the setting of suspected or documented infection, septic shock is typically defined in a clinical setting by low systolic (≤90 mm Hg) or mean arterial blood pressure (≤65 mm Hg) accompanied by signs of hypoperfusion (eg, oliguria, hyperlactemia, poor peripheral perfusion, or altered mental status). Focused ultrasonography is recommended for the prompt recognition of complicating physiology (eg, hypovolemia or cardiogenic shock), while invasive hemodynamic monitoring is recommended only for select patients. In septic shock, 3 randomized clinical trials demonstrate that protocolized care offers little advantage compared with management without a protocol. Hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended, and debate continues about the role of various crystalloid solutions and albumin. Conclusions and Relevance: The prompt diagnosis of septic shock begins with obtainment of medical history and performance of a physical examination for signs and symptoms of infection and may require focused ultrasonography to recognize more complex physiologic manifestations of shock. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt administration of intravenous fluids and vasoactive medications aimed at restoring adequate circulation, and the limitations of protocol-based therapy, as guided by recent evidence.
AB - Importance: Septic shock is a clinical emergency that occurs in more than 230 000 US patients each year. Observations and Advances: In the setting of suspected or documented infection, septic shock is typically defined in a clinical setting by low systolic (≤90 mm Hg) or mean arterial blood pressure (≤65 mm Hg) accompanied by signs of hypoperfusion (eg, oliguria, hyperlactemia, poor peripheral perfusion, or altered mental status). Focused ultrasonography is recommended for the prompt recognition of complicating physiology (eg, hypovolemia or cardiogenic shock), while invasive hemodynamic monitoring is recommended only for select patients. In septic shock, 3 randomized clinical trials demonstrate that protocolized care offers little advantage compared with management without a protocol. Hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended, and debate continues about the role of various crystalloid solutions and albumin. Conclusions and Relevance: The prompt diagnosis of septic shock begins with obtainment of medical history and performance of a physical examination for signs and symptoms of infection and may require focused ultrasonography to recognize more complex physiologic manifestations of shock. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt administration of intravenous fluids and vasoactive medications aimed at restoring adequate circulation, and the limitations of protocol-based therapy, as guided by recent evidence.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940743799&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jama.2015.7885
DO - 10.1001/jama.2015.7885
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26284722
AN - SCOPUS:84940743799
SN - 0098-7484
VL - 314
SP - 708
EP - 717
JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
IS - 7
ER -