Cargando…

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis

OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nunnally, Mark E., Ferrer, Ricard, Martin, Greg S., Martin-Loeches, Ignacio, Machado, Flavia R., De Backer, Daniel, Coopersmith, Craig M., Deutschman, Clifford S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8249046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34212256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z
_version_ 1783716829814849536
author Nunnally, Mark E.
Ferrer, Ricard
Martin, Greg S.
Martin-Loeches, Ignacio
Machado, Flavia R.
De Backer, Daniel
Coopersmith, Craig M.
Deutschman, Clifford S.
author_facet Nunnally, Mark E.
Ferrer, Ricard
Martin, Greg S.
Martin-Loeches, Ignacio
Machado, Flavia R.
De Backer, Daniel
Coopersmith, Craig M.
Deutschman, Clifford S.
author_sort Nunnally, Mark E.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS: Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS: The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8249046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82490462021-07-02 The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis Nunnally, Mark E. Ferrer, Ricard Martin, Greg S. Martin-Loeches, Ignacio Machado, Flavia R. De Backer, Daniel Coopersmith, Craig M. Deutschman, Clifford S. Intensive Care Med Exp Reviews OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS: Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS: The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care. Springer International Publishing 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8249046/ /pubmed/34212256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Reviews
Nunnally, Mark E.
Ferrer, Ricard
Martin, Greg S.
Martin-Loeches, Ignacio
Machado, Flavia R.
De Backer, Daniel
Coopersmith, Craig M.
Deutschman, Clifford S.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title_full The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title_fullStr The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title_full_unstemmed The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title_short The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
title_sort surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8249046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34212256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z
work_keys_str_mv AT nunnallymarke thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT ferrerricard thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT martingregs thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT martinloechesignacio thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT machadoflaviar thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT debackerdaniel thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT coopersmithcraigm thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT deutschmancliffords thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT nunnallymarke survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT ferrerricard survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT martingregs survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT martinloechesignacio survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT machadoflaviar survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT debackerdaniel survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT coopersmithcraigm survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT deutschmancliffords survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis
AT survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis