Emerging mechanisms of immunocoagulation in sepsis and septic shock.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tang D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8436187 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
Project description:Sepsis is currently defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, and it affects over 25 million people every year. Even more severe, septic shock is a subset of sepsis defined by persistent hypotension, and hospital mortality rates are higher than 40%. Although early sepsis mortality has greatly improved in the past few years, sepsis patients who survive the hyperinflammation and subsequent organ damage often die from long-term complications, such as secondary infection, and despite decades of clinical trials targeting this stage of the disease, currently, no sepsis-specific therapies exist. As new pathophysiological mechanisms have been uncovered, immunostimulatory therapy has emerged as a promising path forward. Highly investigated treatment strategies include cytokines and growth factors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and even cellular therapies. There is much to be learned from related illnesses, and immunotherapy trials in oncology, as well as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, have greatly informed sepsis research. Although the journey ahead is a long one, the stratification of patients according to their immune status and the employment of combination therapies represent a hopeful way forward.
| S-EPMC10142733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA 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.MethodsEach 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.ResultsThe 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?ConclusionsWhile 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.
| S-EPMC7095388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBaseline characteristics and disease severity of patients with septic shock according to the new Sepsis-3 definition may differ from patients that only comply with the Sepsis-2 definition. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on the ICU of a Belgian tertiary care facility to seek out differences between these two patient groups and to identify variables associated with no longer satisfying the latest definition of septic shock.ResultsOf 1198 patients with septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 consensus definition, 233 (19.4%) did not have septic shock according to the Sepsis-3 shock definition. These patients more often had medical admission reasons and a respiratory infection as cause for the septic shock. They less often had surgery on admission and were less likely to have chronic liver disease (5.6% vs 16.2%, absolute difference 10.6% (95% CI 6.4-14.1%). Patients with septic shock only according to the old definition had significant lower APACHE II and SOFA scores and lower hospital mortality (31.6% vs 55.3%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, following variables were associated with Sepsis-2 shock patients no longer being defined as such by the Sepsis-3 definition: respiratory infection (OR 1.485 (95% CI 1.56-2.089), p = 0.023), a medical admission reason (OR 1.977 (95% CI 1.396-2.800) and chronic liver disease (OR 0.345 (95% CI 0.181-0.660), p < 0.001).ConclusionsOne in five patients with septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 consensus definition is no longer considered as such when the Sepsis-3 shock criteria are applied. A medical admission reason, a respiratory infection and absence of chronic liver disease are independently associated with no longer being identified as having septic shock by the Sepsis-3 criteria.
| S-EPMC8557229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSepsis and septic shock are leading causes of in-hospital mortality. Timely treatment is crucial in improving patient outcome, yet treatment delays remain common. Early prediction of those patients with sepsis who will progress to its most severe form, septic shock, can increase the actionable window for interventions. We aim to extend a time-evolving risk score, previously developed in adult patients, to predict pediatric sepsis patients who are likely to develop septic shock before its onset, and to determine whether or not these risk scores stratify into groups with distinct temporal evolution once this prediction is made.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingAcademic medical center from July 1, 2016, to December 11, 2020.PatientsSix-thousand one-hundred sixty-one patients under 18 admitted to the Johns Hopkins Hospital PICU.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe trained risk models to predict impending transition into septic shock and compute time-evolving risk scores representative of a patient's probability of developing septic shock. We obtain early prediction performance of 0.90 area under the receiver operating curve, 43% overall positive predictive value, patient-specific positive predictive value as high as 62%, and an 8.9-hour median early warning time using Sepsis-3 labels based on age-adjusted Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Using spectral clustering, we stratified pediatric sepsis patients into two clusters differing in septic shock prevalence, mortality, and proportion of patients adequately fluid resuscitated.ConclusionsWe demonstrate the applicability of our methodology for early prediction and stratification for risk of septic shock in pediatric sepsis patients. Through analyses of risk score evolution over time, we corroborate our past finding of an abrupt transition preceding onset of septic shock in children and are able to stratify pediatric sepsis patients using their risk score trajectories into low and high-risk categories.
| S-EPMC8208392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe hypothesized that the cardiovascular responses to Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (SSG)-defined resuscitation are predictable based on the cardiovascular state.MethodsFifty-five septic patients treated by SSG were studied before and after volume expansion (VE), and if needed norepinephrine (NE) and dobutamine. We measured mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI), and right atrial pressure (Pra) and calculated pulse pressure and stroke volume variation (PPV and SVV), dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn), arterial elastance (Ea) and left ventricular (LV) end-systolic elastance (Ees), Ees/Ea (VAC), LV ejection efficiency (LVeff), mean systemic pressure analogue (Pmsa), venous return pressure gradient (Pvr), and cardiac performance (Eh), using standard formulae.ResultsAll patients were hypotensive (MAP 56.8 ± 3.1 mmHg) and tachycardic (113.1 ± 7.5 beat min-1), with increased lactate levels (lactate = 5.0 ± 4.2 mmol L-1) with a worsened VAC. CI was variable but > 2 L min-1 M-2 in 74%. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 48% and associated with admission lactate, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine levels but not cardiovascular state. In all patients, both MAP and CI improved following VE, as well as cardiac contractility (Ees). Fluid administration improved Pra, Pmsa, and Pvr in all patients, whereas both HR and Ea decreased after VE, thus normalizing VAC. CI increases were proportional to baseline PPV and SVV. CI increases proportionally decreased PPV and SVV. VE increased MAP > 65 mmHg in 35/55 patients. MAP responders had higher PPV, SVV, and Eadyn than non-responders. NE was given to 20/55 patients in septic shock, but increased MAP > 65 mmHg in only 12. NE increased Ea, Eadyn, Pra, Pmsa, and VAC while decreasing HR, PPV, SVV, and LVeff. MAP responders had higher pre-NE Ees and lower VAC. Dobutamine was given to 6/8 patients who remained hypotensive following NE. It increased Ees, MAP, CI, and LVeff, while decreasing HR, Pra, and VAC. At all times and all steps of the protocol, CI changes were proportional to Pvr changes independent of treatment.ConclusionsThe cardiovascular response to SSG-based resuscitation is highly heterogeneous but predictable from pre-treatment measures of cardiovascular state.
| S-EPMC6466803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Morbidity and mortality from sepsis remains unacceptably high. Large variability in clinical practice, plus the increasing awareness that certain processes of care associated with improved critical care outcomes, has led to the development of clinical practice guidelines in a variety of areas related to infection and sepsis. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock were first published in 2004, revised in 2008, and recently revised again and published in 2013. The first part of this manuscript is a summary of the 2013 guidelines with some editorial comment. The second part of the manuscript characterizes hospital based sepsis performance improvement programs and highlights the sepsis bundles from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key component of such a program.
| S-EPMC3916373 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8486643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Understanding the underlying cause of mortality in sepsis has broad implications for both clinical care and interventional trial design. However, reasons for death in sepsis remain poorly understood. We sought to characterize reasons for in-hospital mortality in a population of patients with sepsis or septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with sepsis or septic shock who died during their index admission. Reasons for death were classified into 6 categories determined a priori by group consensus. Interrater reliability was calculated and Fleiss ? reported. The associations between selected patient characteristics (eg, serum lactate) and reason for death were also assessed. RESULTS:One hundred fifteen patients were included. Refractory shock (40%) and comorbid withdrawal of care (44%) were the most common reasons for death. Overall interrater agreement was substantial (? = 0.61, P<.01). Lactate was higher in patients who died because of refractory shock as compared with those who died for other reasons (4.7 vs 2.8 mmol/L, P<.01). CONCLUSION:In this retrospective cohort, refractory shock and comorbid withdrawal of care were the most common reasons for death. Following prospective validation, the classification methodology presented here may be useful in the design/interpretation of trials in sepsis.
| S-EPMC5588153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early management of sepsis and septic shock is crucial for patients' prognosis. As the Emergency Department (ED) is the place where the first medical contact for septic patients is likely to occur, emergency physicians play an essential role in the early phases of patient management, which consists of accurate initial diagnosis, resuscitation, and early antibiotic treatment. Since the issuing of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2016, several studies have been published on different aspects of sepsis management, adding a substantial amount of new information on the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis and septic shock. In light of this emerging evidence, the present narrative review provides a comprehensive account of the recent advances in septic patient management in the ED.
| S-EPMC8354945 | biostudies-literature