11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Recent advances in understanding and managing sepsis

      review-article
      1 , a , 1
      F1000Research
      F1000 Research Limited
      Sepsis, Sepsis Pathophysiology, Sepsis Definition, Sepsis Management

      Read this article at

      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

          The last two to three years provided several “big steps” regarding our understanding and management of sepsis. The increasing insight into pathomechanisms of post-infectious defense led to some new models of host response. Besides hyper-, hypo-, and anti-inflammation as the traditional approaches to sepsis pathophysiology, tolerance and resilience were described as natural ways that organisms react to microbes. In parallel, huge data analyses confirmed these research insights with a new way to define sepsis and septic shock (called “Sepsis-3”), which led to discussions within the scientific community. In addition to these advances in understanding and defining the disease, follow-up protocols of the initial “sepsis bundles” from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign were created; some of them were part of quality management studies by clinicians, and some were in the form of mandatory procedures. As a result, new “bundles” were initiated with the goal of enabling standardized management of sepsis and septic shock, especially in the very early phase. This short commentary provides a brief overview of these two major fields as recent hallmarks of sepsis research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

          Background In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. Methods We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. Results Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). Conclusions More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis.

            The consensus definition of severe sepsis requires suspected or proven infection, organ failure, and signs that meet two or more criteria for the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We aimed to test the sensitivity, face validity, and construct validity of this approach.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis

              Objective The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC or “the Campaign”) developed guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. A performance improvement initiative targeted changing clinical behavior (process improvement) via bundles based on key SSC guideline recommendations on process improvement and patient outcomes. Design and setting A multifaceted intervention to facilitate compliance with selected guideline recommendations in the ICU, ED, and wards of individual hospitals and regional hospital networks was implemented voluntarily in the US, Europe, and South America. Elements of the guidelines were “bundled” into two sets of targets to be completed within 6 h and within 24 h. An analysis was conducted on data submitted from January 2005 through March 2008. Main results Data from 15,022 subjects at 165 sites were analyzed to determine the compliance with bundle targets and association with hospital mortality. Compliance with the entire resuscitation bundle increased linearly from 10.9% in the first site quarter to 31.3% by the end of 2 years (P < 0.0001). Compliance with the entire management bundle started at 18.4% in the first quarter and increased to 36.1% by the end of 2 years (P = 0.008). Compliance with all bundle elements increased significantly, except for inspiratory plateau pressure, which was high at baseline. Unadjusted hospital mortality decreased from 37 to 30.8% over 2 years (P = 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality improved the longer a site was in the Campaign, resulting in an adjusted absolute drop of 0.8% per quarter and 5.4% over 2 years (95% CI, 2.5–8.4%). Conclusions The Campaign was associated with sustained, continuous quality improvement in sepsis care. Although not necessarily cause and effect, a reduction in reported hospital mortality rates was associated with participation. The implications of this study may serve as an impetus for similar improvement efforts. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                28 September 2018
                2018
                : 7
                : F1000 Faculty Rev-1570
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care Medicine, and Pain Management, Vivantes – Klinikum Neukoelln, Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                Author notes

                Competing interests: For travel costs for lectures in the last three years, HG has received honoraria and reimbursement from CSL Behring, CytoSorbents, MSD, Novartis, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. DB declares that she has no competing interests.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-0431
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.15758.1
                6173111
                30345006
                9cbc86d9-cf98-404f-8206-79e2eac6f316
                Copyright: © 2018 Berg D and Gerlach H

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 September 2018
                Funding
                The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
                Categories
                Review
                Articles

                sepsis,sepsis pathophysiology,sepsis definition,sepsis management

                Comments

                Comment on this article