2,833 publications from this institution
Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.
Vincent, Jean-Louis MD; Puri, Vinod K. MD; Carlson, Richard W. MD, PhD; Weil, Max Harry MD, PhD Author Information
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center; and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA *See also p. 1371. Dr. Peltan’s institution received funding from Asahi Kasei Pharma, and he received funding (unrelated to the present work) from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Liu’s institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) R35GM128672, and he received support for article research from the NIH.
One of the many potential sequelae of intensive care is prolonged weakness, which can be associated with increased morbidity during the intensive care unit stay and long-term functional disability. Despite increased awareness of this complication in recent years, diagnosing intensive care unit-acquired weakness remains difficult and there are no specific therapies. Management, therefore, relies on limiting its short- and long-term effects. One method by which this may be achieved is to reduce sedative use and promote early mobilization and exercise.
info:eu-repo/semantics/published
info:eu-repo/semantics/published
The majority of deaths on the intensive care unit now occur following a decision to limit life-sustaining therapy, and end-of-life decision making is an accepted and important part of modern intensive care medical practice. Such decisions can essentially take one of two forms: withdrawing – the removal of a therapy that has been started in an attempt to sustain life but is not, or is no longer, effective – and withholding – the decision not to make further therapeutic interventions. Despite wide agreement by Western ethicists that there is no ethical difference between these two approaches, these issues continue to generate considerable debate. In this article, I will provide arguments why, although the two actions are indeed ethically equivalent, withdrawing lifesustaining therapy may in fact be preferable to withholding.
info:eu-repo/semantics/published
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
