4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVES:

          To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

          DESIGN:

          Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

          METHODS:

          Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

          RESULTS:

          A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

          Related collections

          Most cited references264

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).

          Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

            Summary Background Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. It is considered a major cause of health loss, but data for the global burden of sepsis are limited. As a syndrome caused by underlying infection, sepsis is not part of standard Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) estimates. Accurate estimates are important to inform and monitor health policy interventions, allocation of resources, and clinical treatment initiatives. We estimated the global, regional, and national incidence of sepsis and mortality from this disorder using data from GBD 2017. Methods We used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis among each of the 282 underlying causes of death in GBD 2017. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying GBD cause in each location worldwide was modelled using mixed-effects linear regression. Sepsis-related mortality for each age group, sex, location, GBD cause, and year (1990–2017) was estimated by applying modelled cause-specific fractions to GBD 2017 cause-of-death estimates. We used data for 8·7 million individual hospital records to calculate in-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality, stratified by underlying GBD cause. In-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality was modelled for each location using linear regression, and sepsis incidence was estimated by applying modelled case-fatality to sepsis-related mortality estimates. Findings In 2017, an estimated 48·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·9–62·9) incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide and 11·0 million (10·1–12·0) sepsis-related deaths were reported, representing 19·7% (18·2–21·4) of all global deaths. Age-standardised sepsis incidence fell by 37·0% (95% UI 11·8–54·5) and mortality decreased by 52·8% (47·7–57·5) from 1990 to 2017. Sepsis incidence and mortality varied substantially across regions, with the highest burden in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia. Interpretation Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Funding The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh, the British Columbia Children's Hospital Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Critical Care Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0090-3493
                2024
                January 19 2024
                February 2024
                : 52
                : 2
                : 268-296
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children’s Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY.
                [3 ]Sepsis Research Lab, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY.
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
                [5 ]Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
                [6 ]Department of Critical Care, King’s College London, Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
                [7 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
                [8 ]Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
                [9 ]Department of Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
                [10 ]Istituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
                [11 ]Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
                [12 ]Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
                [13 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                [14 ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St James’s Hospital, Leinster, Dublin, Ireland.
                [15 ]NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY.
                [16 ]Pediatric Intensive Care, Neonatal Medicine and Pediatric Emergency, AP-HP Paris Saclay University, Bicêtre Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
                [17 ]Service de Medecine Intensive Reanimation, Hopital Ambroise Pare, Universite Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
                [18 ]Department of Surgery and Emory Critical Care Center, Atlanta, GA.
                Article
                10.1097/CCM.0000000000006135
                38240508
                7a667c95-e056-4ae6-a058-41bf0a717d6f
                © 2024
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article