Expanding elderly populations are a major social challenge in advanced countries worldwide and have led to a rapid increase in the number of elderly patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Innovative advances in medical technology have enabled lifesaving of patients in ICUs, but there remain various problems to improve their long‐term prognoses. Post‐intensive care syndrome (PICS) refers to physical, cognition, and mental impairments that occur during ICU stay, after ICU discharge or hospital discharge, as well as the long‐term prognosis of ICU patients. Its concept also applies to pediatric patients (PICS‐p) and the mental status of their family (PICS‐F). Intensive care unit‐acquired weakness, a syndrome characterized by acute symmetrical limb muscle weakness after ICU admission, belongs to physical impairments in three domains of PICS. Prevention of PICS requires performance of the ABCDEFGH bundle, which incorporates the prevention of delirium, early rehabilitation, family intervention, and follow‐up from the time of ICU admission to the time of discharge. Diary, nutrition, nursing care, and environmental management for healing are also important in the prevention of PICS. This review outlines the pathophysiology, prevention, and future directions of PICS.

To cite this article: Umemura Y, Yamakawa K, Ogura H, Yuhara H, Fujimi S. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in three specific populations with sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thromb Haemost 2016; 14: 518-30. Essentials• Most anticoagulant therapy has failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in the overall sepsis population.• We conducted separate meta-analyses of anticoagulant therapy in three different populations.• Survival benefit was observed only in the septic disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) population.• Further randomized controlled trials should focus on specific populations with septic DIC.Summary. Background: Although many preclinical trials have indicated the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulant therapy as an adjuvant therapy against sepsis, there is little evidence to support its effectiveness to reduce mortality in the overall population with sepsis in clinical situations. However, several studies suggested that specific anticoagulant therapy may potentially reduce mortality in patients with sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Objective: We investigated whether the survival benefit of anticoagulant therapy might pertain to the coagulopathic population with sepsis. Methods: We conducted separate meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials for anticoagulant therapy in three different populations: (i) overall population with sepsis, (ii) population with sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and (iii) population with sepsis-induced DIC. We searched MED-LINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials comparing anticoagulant therapy with placebo or no intervention in sepsis patients. We measured all-cause mortality as the primary outcome and bleeding complications as the secondary outcome.Results: We analyzed 24 trials enrolling 14 767 patients. There were no significant reductions in mortality in the overall sepsis population and the population with sepsisinduced coagulopathy. Otherwise, we observed significant reductions in mortality (risk ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.85) in the population with sepsis-induced DIC. As adverse events, bleeding complications tended to increase similarly with anticoagulant therapy in all three populations. Conclusion: Although associated with an increased risk of bleeding, anticoagulant therapy resulted in no survival benefits in the overall sepsis population and even the population with sepsis-induced coagulopathy; beneficial effects on mortality were observed only in the population with sepsis-induced DIC.

Background and PurposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J‐SSCG 2016), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two‐thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J‐SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta‐analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese‐specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non‐specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.