O'Grady N P, Barie P S, Bartlett J, Bleck T, Garvey G, Jacobi J, Linden P, Maki D G, Nam M, Pasculle W, Pasquale M D, Tribett D L, Masur H
Crit Care Med. 1998 Feb;26(2):392-408. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199802000-00046.
To develop practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the purpose of guiding clinical practice.
A task force of 13 experts in disciplines related to critical care medicine, infectious diseases, and surgery was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the Infectious Disease Society of America.
The task force members provided the personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus would be sought. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value.
The task force met several times in person and twice monthly by teleconference over a 1-yr period of time to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the experts' opinions. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process.
The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the ICU should trigger a careful clinical assessment rather than automatic orders for laboratory and radiologic tests. A cost-conscious approach to obtaining cultures and imaging studies should be undertaken if it is indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether or not infection is present, so additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic options can be made.
制定针对在重症监护病房(ICU)出现新发发热的成年患者的评估实践参数,以指导临床实践。
从危重病医学会和美国传染病学会的成员中召集了一个由13名重症医学、传染病和外科相关学科专家组成的特别工作组。
特别工作组成员提供个人经验,并确定将从中寻求共识的已发表文献(MEDLINE文章、教科书等)。根据研究设计和科学价值,对已发表文献进行审查并分类为四类之一。
特别工作组在1年的时间里多次亲自会面,并每月通过电话会议会面两次,以确定相关文献并达成共识性建议。考虑了科学证据的权重与专家意见之间的关系。特别工作组撰写并讨论了文件草案,直到通过名义群体法达成共识。
该小组得出结论,由于发热可能有多种感染性和非感染性病因,ICU患者出现新发发热应引发仔细的临床评估,而不是自动开具实验室和影像学检查医嘱。如果临床评估后有指征,应采取注重成本效益的方法获取培养物和影像学检查。这种方法的目标是以有针对性的方式确定是否存在感染,从而避免额外的检查并做出治疗选择。