Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock.
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Sep; 44(9):1400-1426.IC

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.

METHODS

Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?

CONCLUSIONS

While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Links

PMC Free PDF

Authors+Show Affiliations

Coopersmith CM
Department of Surgery and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
De Backer D
Chirec Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. ddebacke@ulb.ac.be.
Deutschman CS
Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children's Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA. The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research/Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Ferrer R
Intensive Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. Shock, Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation (SODIR) Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Barcelona, Spain.
Lat I
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Machado FR
Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Martin GS
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Martin-Loeches I
Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Nunnally ME
New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Antonelli M
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Evans LE
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Bellevue Hospital Center and New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Hellman J
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jog S
Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital and Research Center, Pune, India.
Kesecioglu J
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Levy MM
Rhode Island Hospital, Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Rhodes A
Department of Adult Critical Care, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and St George's University of London, London, UK.

MeSH

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsDelivery of Health CareDisease SusceptibilityDrug CombinationsEarly DiagnosisEnergy MetabolismFluid TherapyHemofiltrationHumansImmune ToleranceMicrobiotaNutritional SupportPlasmapheresisPoint-of-Care TestingPractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision MedicineResearchRespiration, ArtificialResuscitationRisk AssessmentSepsisShock, SepticTreatment OutcomeVasoconstrictor Agents

Pub Type(s)

Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29971592

Citation

Coopersmith, Craig M., et al. "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock." Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 44, no. 9, 2018, pp. 1400-1426.
Coopersmith CM, De Backer D, Deutschman CS, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1400-1426.
Coopersmith, C. M., De Backer, D., Deutschman, C. S., Ferrer, R., Lat, I., Machado, F. R., Martin, G. S., Martin-Loeches, I., Nunnally, M. E., Antonelli, M., Evans, L. E., Hellman, J., Jog, S., Kesecioglu, J., Levy, M. M., & Rhodes, A. (2018). Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(9), 1400-1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z
Coopersmith CM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Sepsis and Septic Shock. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1400-1426. PubMed PMID: 29971592.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. AU - Coopersmith,Craig M, AU - De Backer,Daniel, AU - Deutschman,Clifford S, AU - Ferrer,Ricard, AU - Lat,Ishaq, AU - Machado,Flavia R, AU - Martin,Greg S, AU - Martin-Loeches,Ignacio, AU - Nunnally,Mark E, AU - Antonelli,Massimo, AU - Evans,Laura E, AU - Hellman,Judith, AU - Jog,Sameer, AU - Kesecioglu,Jozef, AU - Levy,Mitchell M, AU - Rhodes,Andrew, Y1 - 2018/07/03/ PY - 2018/02/06/received PY - 2018/04/11/accepted PY - 2018/7/5/pubmed PY - 2019/11/5/medline PY - 2018/7/5/entrez KW - Priorities KW - Research KW - Sepsis KW - Septic shock KW - Surviving Sepsis Campaign SP - 1400 EP - 1426 JF - Intensive care medicine JO - Intensive Care Med VL - 44 IS - 9 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. METHODS: Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? CONCLUSIONS: While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock. SN - 1432-1238 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29971592/Surviving_sepsis_campaign:_research_priorities_for_sepsis_and_septic_shock_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -