Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Update 2018: das 1‑h-Bundle

Hintergrund zu den neuen Empfehlungen

Surviving Sepsis Campaign update 2018: the 1 h bundle

Background to the new recommendations

  • Leitlinien und Empfehlungen
  • Published:
Der Anaesthesist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ein neues Update der Sepsis-Bündel wurde von der Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) im April 2018 veröffentlicht. Die 3‑ und 6‑h-Sepsis-Bündel wurden überarbeitet und zu einem 1‑h-Bündel kombiniert. Die Empfehlungen fokussieren auf diagnostische und therapeutische Maßnahmen, die innerhalb der ersten Stunde nach Erkennen der Sepsis durchgeführt werden sollen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Hintergründe sowie die Kritik an den neuen Empfehlungen diskutiert.

Abstract

A new update of the sepsis bundle was published by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) in April 2018. The original 3 h and 6 h bundles have been restructured and combined into a 1‑h bundle. The recommendations comprehensively focus on diagnostic and therapeutic measures which should be carried out within 1 h after recognition of sepsis. This article presents the background and discusses criticisms of the new recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Levy MM, Pronovost PJ, Dellinger RP, Townsend S, Resar RK, Clemmer TP et al (2004) Sepsis change bundles: converting guidelines into meaningful change in behavior and clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 32(11 Suppl):S595–S597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cardoso T, Carneiro AH, Ribeiro O, Teixeira-Pinto A, Costa-Pereira A (2010) Reducing mortality in severe sepsis with the implementation of a core 6‑hour bundle: results from the Portuguese community-acquired sepsis study (SACiUCI study). Crit Care 14(3):R83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller RR 3rd, Dong L, Nelson NC, Brown SM, Kuttler KG, Probst DR et al (2013) Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 188(1):77–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, Friedrich ME, Iwashyna TJ, Phillips GS et al (2017) Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 376(23):2235–2244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP et al (2014) Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med 42(8):1749–1755

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A (2018) The surviving sepsis campaign bundle: 2018 update. Intensive Care Med 44(6):925–928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marik PE, Farkas JD, Spiegel R, Weingart S, collaborating authors (2019) POINT: Should the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Be Retired? Yes. Chest 155(1):12–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S et al (2006) Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 34(6):1589–1596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bloos F, Thomas-Ruddel D, Ruddel H, Engel C, Schwarzkopf D, Marshall JC et al (2014) Impact of compliance with infection management guidelines on outcome in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational multi-center study. Crit Care 18(2):R42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Puskarich MA, Trzeciak S, Shapiro NI, Arnold RC, Horton JM, Studnek JR et al (2011) Association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality from septic shock in patients treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol. Crit Care Med 39(9):2066–2071

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Alam N, Oskam E, Stassen PM, Exter PV, van de Ven PM, Haak HR et al (2018) Prehospital antibiotics in the ambulance for sepsis: a multicentre, open label, randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med 6(1):40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hranjec T, Rosenberger LH, Swenson B, Metzger R, Flohr TR, Politano AD et al (2012) Aggressive versus conservative initiation of antimicrobial treatment in critically ill surgical patients with suspected intensive-care-unit-acquired infection: a quasi-experimental, before and after observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 12(10):774–780

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland

    J. Briegel & P. Möhnle

Authors
  1. J. Briegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Möhnle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Briegel.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

J. Briegel und P. Möhnle geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Briegel, J., Möhnle, P. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Update 2018: das 1‑h-Bundle. Anaesthesist 68, 204–207 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-019-0571-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-019-0571-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation