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

Naomi P. O'Grady, Philip S. Barie, John G. Bartlett, Thomas Bleck, Karen Carroll, Andre C Kalil, Peter Linden, Dennis G. Maki, David Nierman, William Pasculle, Henry Masur

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

318 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology. EVIDENCE: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit 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 indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1330-1349
Number of pages20
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Critical Care
Critical Illness
Fever
Medicine
Guidelines
Consensus
Intensive Care Units
Infectious Disease Medicine
Telecommunications
Group Processes
Textbooks
Postal Service
Neurology
Internal Medicine
Microbiology
MEDLINE
Communicable Diseases
Weights and Measures
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Blood cultures
  • Catheter infection
  • Colitis
  • Critical illness
  • Fever
  • Intensive care unit
  • Nosocomial infection
  • Pneumonia
  • Sinusitis
  • Surgical site infection
  • Temperature measurement
  • Urinary tract infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

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. / O'Grady, Naomi P.; Barie, Philip S.; Bartlett, John G.; Bleck, Thomas; Carroll, Karen; Kalil, Andre C; Linden, Peter; Maki, Dennis G.; Nierman, David; Pasculle, William; Masur, Henry.

In: Critical care medicine, Vol. 36, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 1330-1349.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

O'Grady, Naomi P. ; Barie, Philip S. ; Bartlett, John G. ; Bleck, Thomas ; Carroll, Karen ; Kalil, Andre C ; Linden, Peter ; Maki, Dennis G. ; Nierman, David ; Pasculle, William ; Masur, Henry. / 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. In: Critical care medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 36, No. 4. pp. 1330-1349.
@article{f99e742f05604171b1229fdff7f74acb,
title = "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",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology. EVIDENCE: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit 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 indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.",
keywords = "Blood cultures, Catheter infection, Colitis, Critical illness, Fever, Intensive care unit, Nosocomial infection, Pneumonia, Sinusitis, Surgical site infection, Temperature measurement, Urinary tract infection",
author = "O'Grady, {Naomi P.} and Barie, {Philip S.} and Bartlett, {John G.} and Thomas Bleck and Karen Carroll and Kalil, {Andre C} and Peter Linden and Maki, {Dennis G.} and David Nierman and William Pasculle and Henry Masur",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0b013e318169eda9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "1330--1349",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidelines for evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients

T2 - 2008 Update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

AU - O'Grady, Naomi P.

AU - Barie, Philip S.

AU - Bartlett, John G.

AU - Bleck, Thomas

AU - Carroll, Karen

AU - Kalil, Andre C

AU - Linden, Peter

AU - Maki, Dennis G.

AU - Nierman, David

AU - Pasculle, William

AU - Masur, Henry

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology. EVIDENCE: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit 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 indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To update the practice parameters for the evaluation of adult patients who develop a new fever in the intensive care unit, for the purpose of guiding clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A task force of 11 experts in the disciplines related to critical care medicine and infectious diseases was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Specialties represented included critical care medicine, surgery, internal medicine, infectious diseases, neurology, and laboratory medicine/microbiology. EVIDENCE: The task force members provided personal experience and determined the published literature (MEDLINE articles, textbooks, etc.) from which consensus was obtained. Published literature was reviewed and classified into one of four categories, according to study design and scientific value. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The task force met twice in person, several times by teleconference, and held multiple e-mail discussions during a 2-yr period to identify the pertinent literature and arrive at consensus recommendations. Consideration was given to the relationship between the weight of scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Draft documents were composed and debated by the task force until consensus was reached by nominal group process. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that, because fever can have many infectious and noninfectious etiologies, a new fever in a patient in the intensive care unit 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 indicated after a clinical evaluation. The goal of such an approach is to determine, in a directed manner, whether infection is present so that additional testing can be avoided and therapeutic decisions can be made.

KW - Blood cultures

KW - Catheter infection

KW - Colitis

KW - Critical illness

KW - Fever

KW - Intensive care unit

KW - Nosocomial infection

KW - Pneumonia

KW - Sinusitis

KW - Surgical site infection

KW - Temperature measurement

KW - Urinary tract infection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=41649099152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=41649099152&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318169eda9

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318169eda9

M3 - Article

C2 - 18379262

AN - SCOPUS:41649099152

VL - 36

SP - 1330

EP - 1349

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 4

ER -