TY - JOUR
T1 - Surviving sepsis campaign
T2 - 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
N1 - Funding Information:
The committee thanks Theodore J. Iwashyna for careful review and intellectual contributions to the post-ICU subgroup. Surviving Sepsis Research Subgroup Heads Clifford Deutschman (basic/translational science), Ricard Ferrer (administration/epidemiology), Ishaq Lat (fluids and vasoactive agents), Flavia R. Machado (post-intensive care unit), Greg S. Martin (adjunctive therapy), Ignacio Martin-Loeches (infection), Mark E. Nunnally (scoring/identification). This article is being simultaneously published in Critical Care Medicine (10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225) and Intensive Care Medicine.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, 2018 SCCM and ESICM.
PY - 2018/9/1
Y1 - 2018/9/1
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.
AB - 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.
KW - Priorities
KW - Research
KW - Sepsis
KW - Septic shock
KW - Surviving Sepsis Campaign
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049573184&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z
DO - 10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85049573184
SN - 0342-4642
VL - 44
SP - 1400
EP - 1426
JO - Intensive Care Medicine
JF - Intensive Care Medicine
IS - 9
ER -