Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU
- PMID: 37902340
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006022
Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU
Abstract
Rationale: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation.
Objectives: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Panel design: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements.
Results: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data.
Conclusions: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.
Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Supported, in part, by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Weber received funding from Pfizer, Merck, PDI, and Germitec. Dr. Pastores received funding from McGraw Hill; he disclosed that he is on the advisory board for AbbVie. Dr. Van Duin received funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group UM1AI104681), the NIH, and British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy; he disclosed that he is a consultant for Actavis, Tetraphase, Sanofi-Pasteur, MedImmune, Astellas, Merck, Allergan, T2Biosystems, Roche, Achaogen, Neumedicine, Shionogi, Pfizer, Entasis, QPex, Wellspring, Karius, and Utility. Dr. Patel received funding from ContraFect, TenNor Therapeutics Limited, Hylomorph, BioFire, Shionogi, IDSA, NBME, UptoDate, and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course; she disclosed that she is a consultant for Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences, Qvella, and Netflix; she disclosed that she has a patent on Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis PCR issued, a patent on a device/method for sonication with royalties paid by Samsung to Mayo Clinic, and a patent on an anti-biofilm substance issued. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Egi M, Morita K: Fever in non-neurological critically ill patients: A systematic review of observational studies. J Crit Care. 2012; 27:428–433
-
- Achaiah NC, Ak AK: Fever in the Intensive Care Patient. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL, StatPearls Publishing, 2023
-
- O’Grady NP, Barie PS, Bartlett JG, et al.; American College of Critical Care Medicine: Guidelines for evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients: 2008 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Crit Care Med. 2008; 36:1330–1349
-
- Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, et al.; Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149:889–897
-
- Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, et al.: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58:982–990
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical