Cargando…

The race against the "septic shark"

Great white sharks are responsible for about 10 cases of death annually worldwide, as compared with millions of deaths caused by sepsis. However, the basic principles of avoiding shark attacks and fighting sepsis seem to be similar: avoidance, attention, and speed, if necessary. The present review d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Westphal, Martin, Kampmeier, Tim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26728320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc14729
_version_ 1782408151296901120
author Westphal, Martin
Kampmeier, Tim
author_facet Westphal, Martin
Kampmeier, Tim
author_sort Westphal, Martin
collection PubMed
description Great white sharks are responsible for about 10 cases of death annually worldwide, as compared with millions of deaths caused by sepsis. However, the basic principles of avoiding shark attacks and fighting sepsis seem to be similar: avoidance, attention, and speed, if necessary. The present review discusses the current status of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which are actually content for discussion because of their low specificity. Current data suggest that one in eight patients with severe sepsis does not fulfill the SIRS criteria and is consequently missed, and therefore the calls for new definitions of sepsis are getting louder. Furthermore, the need for early treatment of sepsis and fast admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) with experienced stuff is reviewed as well as the early and appropriate initiation of therapy, namely antibiotic and volume therapy. A key feature is the analysis of the studies from the so-called "Sepsis Trilogy" (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMiSe studies), with a focus on the status of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). The authors of the "Sepsis Trilogy" concluded that there is no benefit regarding survival in septic patients by using EGDT as compared with standard therapy. However, the low mortality of the control groups within the "Sepsis Trilogy" studies as compared with the Rivers et al. study from 2001 leads to the conclusion that there has been an improvement in the therapy of septic patients, most probably due to the early initiation of therapy as a kind of "standard" in sepsis therapy. Finally, the phenomenon of a "large trial disease" is discussed, exemplary in a trial which investigated the maintenance of the "right" mean arterial pressure in sepsis patients. Even if the result of a large randomized trial might be that there is no difference between two study groups, the real exercise is to identify the patient collectives who might benefit or experience harm due to an intervention. In summary, as compared with swimming in dangerous waters, high attention is needed in handling septic patients. Once an attack has occurred, speed is of utmost importance (i.e., initiation of therapy and admission to the ICU) because it appears logical that time is critical in septic patients This may have resulted in the implementation of early (goal-directed) treatment as a "standard" in the treatment of sepsis with significant improvement in survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4699162
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46991622016-01-13 The race against the "septic shark" Westphal, Martin Kampmeier, Tim Crit Care Review Great white sharks are responsible for about 10 cases of death annually worldwide, as compared with millions of deaths caused by sepsis. However, the basic principles of avoiding shark attacks and fighting sepsis seem to be similar: avoidance, attention, and speed, if necessary. The present review discusses the current status of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which are actually content for discussion because of their low specificity. Current data suggest that one in eight patients with severe sepsis does not fulfill the SIRS criteria and is consequently missed, and therefore the calls for new definitions of sepsis are getting louder. Furthermore, the need for early treatment of sepsis and fast admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) with experienced stuff is reviewed as well as the early and appropriate initiation of therapy, namely antibiotic and volume therapy. A key feature is the analysis of the studies from the so-called "Sepsis Trilogy" (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMiSe studies), with a focus on the status of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT). The authors of the "Sepsis Trilogy" concluded that there is no benefit regarding survival in septic patients by using EGDT as compared with standard therapy. However, the low mortality of the control groups within the "Sepsis Trilogy" studies as compared with the Rivers et al. study from 2001 leads to the conclusion that there has been an improvement in the therapy of septic patients, most probably due to the early initiation of therapy as a kind of "standard" in sepsis therapy. Finally, the phenomenon of a "large trial disease" is discussed, exemplary in a trial which investigated the maintenance of the "right" mean arterial pressure in sepsis patients. Even if the result of a large randomized trial might be that there is no difference between two study groups, the real exercise is to identify the patient collectives who might benefit or experience harm due to an intervention. In summary, as compared with swimming in dangerous waters, high attention is needed in handling septic patients. Once an attack has occurred, speed is of utmost importance (i.e., initiation of therapy and admission to the ICU) because it appears logical that time is critical in septic patients This may have resulted in the implementation of early (goal-directed) treatment as a "standard" in the treatment of sepsis with significant improvement in survival. BioMed Central 2015 2015-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4699162/ /pubmed/26728320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc14729 Text en Copyright © 2015 Westphal and Kampmeier. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Westphal, Martin
Kampmeier, Tim
The race against the "septic shark"
title The race against the "septic shark"
title_full The race against the "septic shark"
title_fullStr The race against the "septic shark"
title_full_unstemmed The race against the "septic shark"
title_short The race against the "septic shark"
title_sort race against the "septic shark"
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26728320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc14729
work_keys_str_mv AT westphalmartin theraceagainstthesepticshark
AT kampmeiertim theraceagainstthesepticshark
AT westphalmartin raceagainstthesepticshark
AT kampmeiertim raceagainstthesepticshark