Search Results (16)

Objective: A controversial aspect of pediatric septic shock management is corticosteroid therapy. Current guidelines do not recommend its use in forms responsive to fluids and inotropes but leave the decision to physicians in forms refractory to the first steps of therapy. Data Sources: Review of literature from January 2013 to December 2023 from online libraries Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Study Selection: The keywords “septic shock”, “steroids” and “children” were used. Data Extraction: Of 399 articles, 63 were selected. Data Synthesis: Regarding mortality, although the 2019 Cochrane review supports reduced mortality, benefits on long-term mortality and in patients with CIRCI (critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency) are not clear. Yang’s metanalysis and retrospective studies of Nichols and Atkinson show no difference or even an increase in mortality. Regarding severity, the Cochrane review claims that hydrocortisone seems to reduce the length of intensive care hospitalization but influences the duration of ventilatory and inotropic support, and the degree of multi-organ failure appears limited. Further controversies exist on adrenal function evaluation: according to literature, including the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, basal or stimulated hormonal dosages do not allow the identification of patients who could benefit from hydrocortisone therapy (poor reproducibility). Regarding side effects, muscle weakness, hypernatremia, and hyperglycemia are the most observed. Conclusions: The literature does not give certainties about the efficacy of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock, as their influence on primary outcomes (mortality and severity) is controversial. A subgroup of patients suffering from secondary adrenal insufficiency could benefit from it, but it remains to be defined how to identify and what protocol to use to treat them. Full article

Background: The early diagnosis and prompt treatment of sepsis can enhance clinical outcomes. This study aimed to assess the relationship between point-of-care testing (POCT) for lactate levels and both adherence to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines and mortality rates among sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED). We hypothesized that bedside lactate POCT would lead to better clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a pre–post observational study utilizing data from a prospectively collected sepsis registry. Following the introduction of lactate POCT, lactate levels were determined using both the central laboratory pathway and a POCT device. We then compared the characteristics and clinical outcomes between the periods before and after the introduction of POCT lactate measurement. Results: The analysis included a total of 1191 patients. The introduction of bedside lactate POCT led to a significant reduction in the time taken to obtain lactate results (from 53 to 33 min) and an increase in the rate of subsequent lactate measurements (from 82.1% to 88.2%). Lactate POCT did not significantly affect adherence to the overall SSC guidelines bundle (47.5% vs. 45.0%) or reduce 30-day mortality rates (31.1% vs. 31.4%). However, bedside lactate POCT could decrease extremely delayed lactate measurements. Conclusions: Bedside lactate POCT successfully reduced the time to obtain lactate results. Although lactate POCT did not lead to improved adherence to the overall SSC guidelines bundle or affect short-term mortality rates in sepsis patients, it may have an advantage in a specific situation such as overcrowded ED where there are subsequent or multiple measurements required. Full article

Sex and gender are fundamental health determinants and their role as modifiers of treatment response is increasingly recognized. Norepinephrine is a cornerstone of septic shock management and its use is based on the highest level of evidence compared to dopamine. The related 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SCC) recommendation is presumably applicable to both females and males; however, a sex- and gender-based analysis is lacking, thus not allowing generalizable conclusions. This paper was aimed at exploring whether sex- and gender-disaggregated data are available in the evidence supporting this recommendation. For all the studies underpinning it, four pairs of authors, including a woman and a man, extracted data concerning sex and gender, according to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines. Nine manuscripts were included with an overall population of 2126 patients, of which 43.2% were females. No sex analysis was performed and gender was never reported. In conclusion, the present manuscript highlighted that the clinical studies underlying the SCC recommendation of NE administration in septic shock have neglected the likely role of sex and gender as modifiers of treatment response, thus missing the opportunity of sex- and gender-specific guidelines. Full article

Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality, with diagnosis and treatment remaining a challenge for clinicians. Their management classically encompasses hemodynamic resuscitation, antibiotic treatment, life support, and focus control; however, there are aspects that have changed. This narrative review highlights current and avant-garde methods of handling patients experiencing septic shock based on the experience of its authors and the best available evidence in a context of uncertainty. Following the first recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, it is recommended that specific sepsis care performance improvement programs are implemented in hospitals, i.e., “Sepsis Code” programs, designed ad hoc, to achieve this goal. Regarding hemodynamics, the importance of perfusion and hemodynamic coherence stand out, which allow for the recognition of different phenotypes, determination of the ideal time for commencing vasopressor treatment, and the appropriate fluid therapy dosage. At present, this is not only important for the initial timing, but also for de-resuscitation, which involves the early weaning of support therapies, directed elimination of fluids, and fluid tolerance concept. Finally, regarding blood purification therapies, those aimed at eliminating endotoxins and cytokines are attractive in the early management of patients in septic shock. Full article

Although the diagnosis of sepsis requires the identification of the three components of infection, a systemic inflammation response, and organ dysfunction, there is currently no consensus on gold-standard criteria. There are however suggested tools and tests, which have been proposed in international guidelines, including those produced by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Biomarkers play an important role in these tools and tests, and numerous heterogeneous studies have been performed to evaluate their respective clinical utility. Our review of the current practice shows that no biomarkers of infection, systemic inflammation response, organ dysfunction and sepsis are currently specifically recommended, which is probably due to the lack of standardization of studies. We therefore propose to define a framework for conducting clinically relevant translational biomarker research and seek to establish ideal criteria that can be applied to an infection, systemic inflammation response, organ dysfunction and sepsis biomarkers, which can enable early screening of sepsis, diagnosis of sepsis at the time of clinical suspicion and monitoring of sepsis treatment efficacy. Full article

Sepsis is a time-dependent disease whose prognosis is influenced by early diagnosis and therapeutic measures. Mortality from sepsis remains high, and for this reason, the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommend establishing specific care programs aimed at patients with sepsis. We present the results of the application of a hospital model to improve performance in sepsis care, called Princess Sepsis Code, with the aim of reducing mortality. A retrospective study was conducted using clinical, epidemiological, and outcome variables in patients diagnosed with sepsis from 2015 to 2022. A total of 2676 patients were included, 32% of whom required admission to the intensive care unit, with the most frequent focus of the sepsis being abdominal. Mortality in 2015, at the beginning of the sepsis code program, was 24%, with a declining rate noted over the study period, with mortality reaching 17% in 2022. In the multivariate analysis, age > 70 years, respiratory rate > 22 rpm, deterioration in the level of consciousness, serum lactate > 2 mmol/L, creatinine > 1.6 mg/dL, and the focus of the sepsis were identified as variables independently related to mortality. The implementation of the Princess Sepsis Code care model reduces the mortality of patients exhibiting sepsis and septic shock. Full article

This review of the use of vasopressin aims to be comprehensive and highly practical, based on the available scientific evidence and our extensive clinical experience with the drug. It summarizes controversies about vasopressin use in septic shock and other vasodilatory states. Vasopressin is a natural hormone with powerful vasoconstrictive effects and is responsible for the regulation of plasma osmolality by maintaining fluid homeostasis. Septic shock is defined by the need for vasopressors to correct hypotension and lactic acidosis secondary to infection, with a high mortality rate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend vasopressin as a second-line vasopressor, added to norepinephrine. However, these guidelines do not address specific debates surrounding the use of vasopressin in real-world clinical practice. Full article

Sepsis is a clinical syndrome encompassing physiologic and biological abnormalities caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis progression into septic shock is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality, hence the importance of early identification and treatment. Over the last two decades, the definition of sepsis has evolved to improve early sepsis recognition and screening, standardize the terms used to describe sepsis and highlight its association with organ dysfunction and higher mortality. The early 2000s witnessed the birth of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), which showed a dramatic reduction in mortality leading to its wide adoption, and the surviving sepsis campaign (SSC), which has been instrumental in developing and updating sepsis guidelines over the last 20 years. Outside of early fluid resuscitation and antibiotic therapy, sepsis management has transitioned to a less aggressive approach over the last few years, shying away from routine mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous pressure monitoring and excessive fluids resuscitation, inotropes use, and red blood cell transfusions. Peripheral vasopressor use was deemed safe and is rising, and resuscitation with balanced crystalloids and a restrictive fluid strategy was explored. This review will address some of sepsis management’s most important yet controversial components and summarize the available evidence from the last two decades. Full article

The importance of fluid resuscitation therapy during the early stages of sepsis management is a well-established principle. Current Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines recommend the early administration of intravenous crystalloid fluids for sepsis-related hypotension or hyperlactatemia due to tissue hypoperfusion, within the first 3 h of resuscitation and suggest using balanced solutions (BSs) instead of normal saline (NS) for the management of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Studies comparing BS versus NS administration in septic patients have demonstrated that BSs are associated with better outcomes including decreased mortality. After initial resuscitation, fluid administration has to be judicious in order to avoid fluid overload, which has been associated with increased mortality, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and worsening of acute kidney injury. The “one size fits all” approach may be “convenient” but it should be avoided. Personalized fluid management, based on patient-specific hemodynamic indices, provides the foundations for better patient outcomes in the future. Although there is a consensus on the need for adequate fluid therapy in sepsis, the type, the amount of administered fluids, and the ideal fluid resuscitation strategy remain elusive. Well-designed large randomized controlled trials are certainly needed to compare fluid choices specifically in the septic patient, as there is currently limited evidence of low quality. This review aims to summarize the physiologic principles and current scientific evidence regarding fluid management in patients with sepsis, as well as to provide a comprehensive overview of the latest data on the optimal fluid administration strategy in sepsis. Full article

The study aims to characterize community-acquired sepsis patients admitted to our 1300-bedded tertiary care hospital in South India from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline-compliant e-sepsis registry stratified by focus of infection. The prospective observational study recruited 1009 adult sepsis patients presenting to the emergency department at the center based on Sepsis-2 criteria for a period of three years. Of the patients, 41% were between 61 and 80 years with a mean age of 57.37 ± 13.5%. A total of 13.5% (136) was under septic shock and in-hospital mortality for the study cohort was 25%. The 3 h and 6 h bundle compliance rates observed were 37% and 49%, respectively, without significant survival benefits. Predictors of mortality among patients with bloodstream infections were septic shock (p = 0.01, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.23–4.79) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p = 0.008, OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.009–1.066). The presence of Acinetobacter (p = 0.005, OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.37–12.09), Candida non-albicans (p = 0.001, OR16.02, 95% CI 3.0–84.2) and septic shock (p = 0.071, OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.97–6.6) were significant predictors of mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. The registry has proven to be a key data source detailing regional microbial etiology and clinical outcomes of adult sepsis patients, enabling comprehensive evaluation of regional community-acquired sepsis to tailor institutional sepsis treatment protocols. Full article

Early intervention in sepsis management with recognized therapeutic targets may be effective in lowering sepsis-related morbidity and mortality, although this necessitates timely identification of sepsis by healthcare professionals. The present study aimed to assess knowledge levels, attitudes, and agreement among physicians regarding the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines (more specifically, the Hour-1 bundle). A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted among physicians working in different clinical settings in Karachi, Pakistan, using a self-administered questionnaire. The mean cumulative knowledge score of the respondents towards SSC was 6.8 ± 2.1 (out of 10), where a total of n = 127 respondents (51.62%) had a strong understanding of the SSC guidelines, compared to n = 78 (31.7%) and n = 41 (16.7%) respondents with fair and inadequate knowledge, respectively. The majorly known bundle elements by the respondents were to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics (89.8%, n = 221), the need for taking blood cultures before administering antibiotics (87.8%, n = 216), and measurement of blood lactate levels (75.6%, n = 186). Experienced physicians were more likely to use norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor (p < 0.001). Female respondents were more likely to consider the duration of antibiotic therapy to be determined according to the site of infection, the microbiological etiology, the patient’s response to treatment, and the likelihood of achieving adequate source control (p = 0.001). The current study concluded that respondents had an optimistic approach and frequently practice in accordance with the SSC guidelines, while some respondents were not up to date with the most recent guidelines. There is a need for further interventions and continuous medical education to encourage physicians towards appropriate use of the recommended guiding principles for improving treatment outcomes in sepsis patients. Full article

The 2017 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines endorse a focus on the rapidity of treatment once sepsis has been identified, with a strong recommendation for the administration of antimicrobial drugs within one hour; however, the quality of the supporting evidence is evaluated as moderate. This study was conducted for six months prospectively at a single center in an intensive care unit (ICU) from March 2020 to August 2020. All the patients, regardless of their age and gender, admitted into ICU who had their first episode of sepsis or septic shock concomitantly started on a broad-spectrum antibiotic given intravenously. For patients who had multiple episodes of sepsis throughout the study period, data from the very first episode of the sepsis were included in this study. Of all the 78 patients, only 38 (48.7%) received the antibiotics prescribed within an hour. The compliance rate as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign was only 51.3%, which accounted for 40 patients. The overall survival rate was 60.3%. This study revealed that delayed antibiotics administration (more than an hour) significantly affects mortality. Full article

After surviving the acute phase of resuscitation, septic shock is the cause of death in the majority of burn patients. Therefore, the management of septic shock is a cornerstone in modern burn care. Whereas sepsis therapy in general has undergone remarkable developments in the past decade, the management of septic shock in burn patients still has a long way to go. Instead, the differences of burn patients with septic shock versus general patients have been emphasized and thus, burn patients were excluded in every sepsis study which are the basis for modern sepsis therapy. However, due to the lack of evidence in burn patients, the standards of procedure for general sepsis therapy have been adopted in burn care. This review identifies the differences of burn patients with sepsis versus other septic patients and summarizes the scientific basis for modern sepsis therapy in general ICU patients and burn patients. Consequently, the results in general sepsis research should be transferred to burn care, which means the implementation of effective screening, early resuscitation, and efficient antimicrobial treatment. Therefore, on the basis of past developments and in the light of the current update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, this review introduces the “Burn SOFA score” and the “3 H’s of burn sepsis” as a screening tool for early sepsis recognition in burn patients. Full article

Background: Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies with a high risk of poor prognosis. We investigate the correspondence between Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines and clinical practice in Poland, with special attention given to differences between ICU and non-ICU environments as well as regional variations within the country. Methods: A web-based questionnaire study was performed on a random sample of 60 hospitals from the three most populated regions in Poland—Masovia, Silesia, and Greater Poland. A 19-item questionnaire was built based on the most recent edition of SSC guidelines. Results: Sepsis diagnosis was primarily based on clinical evaluation (ICUs: 94%, non-ICUs: 62%; p = 0.02). There were significant differences between ICUs and non-ICUs regarding taking blood cultures for pathogen identification (2-times more frequent in ICUs) and having hospital-based operating procedures to adjust antimicrobial treatment to a clinical scenario (a difference of 17%). Modification of empiric antimicrobial treatment was required post-ICU admission in 70% of cases. ICUs differed from non-ICUs with regard to the methods of fluid responsiveness assessment and the types of catecholamines and fluids used to treat septic shock. The mean fluid load applied before the implementation of catecholamines was 25.8 ± 10.6 mL/kg. Norepinephrine was the first-line agent used to treat shock, and balanced crystalloids were preferred in both ICUs and non-ICUs. Conclusion: Compliance with SCC guidelines in Polish hospitals is insufficient, especially outside ICUs. There is a need for education among healthcare professionals to reach at least an acceptable level of knowledge and attitude in this field. Full article

The 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines define sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. This study had the objective of assessing the efficacy of presepsin in the prognosis of sepsis. This was a single-center prospective study, performed in Craiova Emergency Hospital, that included 114 patients admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) department between 2018 and 2019 fulfilling the sepsis criteria. Including criteria were: age ≥ 18, sepsis diagnosed by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of pulmonary, abdominal, urinary, surgical or unknown origin, as well as lactate levels ≥ 2 mmol/l and need of vasopressors for mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mmHg, despite adequate volume resuscitations for patients with septic shock. Patients younger than 18, pregnant, immunocompromised, or with terminal illnesses were excluded. Based on disease severity, patients were distributed into two study groups: sepsis—76 patients and septic shock—38 patients. As expected, SOFA score and most of its components (PaO₂/FiO₂, platelets, and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS)) were significantly modified for patients with septic shock compared to those in the sepsis group and for survivors versus non-survivors. Overall death rate was 34.2%, with a significantly higher value for patients with septic shock (55.3% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.035). Sepsis marker presepsin was significantly elevated in all patients (2047 ng/mL) and significantly increased for the septic shock patients (2538 ng/mL, p < 0.001) and non-survivors (3138 ng/mL, p < 0.001). A significant correlation was identified between the SOFA score and presepsin (r = 0.883, p < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC)-Area Under Curve (AUC) analysis showed significant prognostic values for presepsin regarding both sepsis severity (AUC = 0.726, 95% confidence interval CI = 0.635–0.806) and mortality risk (AUC = 0.861, 95%CI = 0.784–0.919). In conclusion, under the revised definition of sepsis, presepsin could be a useful marker for prognosis of sepsis severity and mortality risk. Additional data are required to confirm the value of presepsin in sepsis prognosis. Full article