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

IMPORTANCE: 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. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. PROCESS: A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis

Toward an operative diagnosis in sepsis: a latent class approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent data have suggested that 18 million of new sepsis cases occur each year worldwide, with a mortality rate of almost 30%. There is not consensus on the clinical definition of sepsis and, because of lack of training or simply unawareness, clinicians often miss or delay this diagnosis. This is especially worrying; since there is strong evidence supporting that early treatment is associated with greater clinical success. There are some difficulties for sepsis diagnosis such as the lack of an appropriate gold standard to identify this clinical condition. This situation has hampered the assessment of the accuracy of clinical signs and biomarkers to diagnose sepsis.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Cross-sectional study to determine the operative characteristics of three biological markers of inflammation and coagulation (D-dimer, C-reactive protein and Procalcitonin) as diagnostic tests for sepsis, in patients admitted to hospital care with a presumptive infection as main diagnosis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>There are alternative techniques that have been used to assess the accuracy of tests without gold standards, and they have been widely used in clinical disciplines such as psychiatry, even though they have not been tested in sepsis diagnosis. Considering the main importance of diagnosis as early as possible, we propose a latent class analysis to evaluate the accuracy of three biomarkers to diagnose sepsis.</p

Waking up the gut in critically ill patients

Multiorgan failure frequently develops in critically ill patients. While therapeutic efforts in such patients are often focused on the lungs, on the cardiovascular system as well as on the kidneys, it is important to also consider the functional alterations in gut motility and hormone secretion. Given the central regulatory functions of many gut hormones, such as glucagon-like peptide 1, glucagon-like peptide 2, ghrelin and others, exogenous supplementation of some of these factors may be beneficial under conditions of critical illness. From a pragmatic point of view, the most feasible way towards a restoration of gut hormone secretion in critically ill patients is to provide enteral nutritional supply as soon as possible

The response of the host microcirculation to bacterial sepsis: Does the pathogen matter?

Sepsis results from the interaction between a host and an invading pathogen. The microcirculatory dysfunction is now considered central in the development of the often deadly multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in septic shock patients. The microcirculatory flow shutdown and flow shunting leading to oxygen demand and supply mismatch at the cellular level and the local activation of inflammatory pathways resulting from the leukocyte-endothelium interactions are both features of the sepsis-induced microcirculatory dysfunction. Although the host response through the inflammatory and immunologic response appears to be critical, there are also evidences that Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria can exert different effects at the microcirculatory level. In this review we discuss available data on the potential bacterial-specific microcirculatory alterations observed during sepsis