Advertisement

Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: An Evidence-Based Review

  • Giorgio Tulli
Chapter

Abstract

Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. The definition of sepsis was updated in 2016 following publication of the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). The 2016 consensus definitions recommend that the Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria and “quick” (q)SOFA criteria be used to identify sepsis, in place of the currently used systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which were the basis for the previous definition of sepsis. SOFA is an ICU-based mortality score, and qSOFA is a rapid, shortened version of SOFA designed for use outside the ICU. The SOFA scores are no clinical predictors of sepsis; they rely on clinical suspicion for the scores to be assessed. There are as many as 750,000–900,000 cases of sepsis per year, resulting in around 200,000 deaths per year. It is likely that there are as many as 30.5 million cases of sepsis annually worldwide, with an estimated 5.3 million deaths annually. Sepsis is a spectrum of disease, where there is a systemic and dysregulated host response to an infection. Risk of progression to fulminant disease is determined by various factors: magnitude and nature of the infective focus, timing and quality of interventions and genetic and acquired predisposition of the patient. Early recognition and diagnosis is essential because early treatment is associated with significant short- and long-term benefits in outcome. There is ongoing debate about the most appropriate criteria for diagnosing sepsis in clinical practice, with several different approaches suggested: SIRS criteria in the presence of infection, SOFA score, and use of risk stratification system as recommended by guideline groups. Strong risk factors are underlying malignancy, age > 65 years, immunocompromise, hemodialysis, alcoholism, diabetes mellitus, recent surgery or other invasive procedures, breached skin integrity, indwelling lines or catheters, intravenous drug misuse and pregnancy. Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is key to improving outcomes. Treatment guidelines have been produced by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and remain the most widely accepted standards. Current best practice is based upon evidence for care bundles in sepsis. They include the following: obtain blood cultures prior to administration of antibiotics; administer broad-spectrum antibiotics that target the suspected pathogen(s); administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥36 mg/dL (≥4 mmol/L); obtain serial measurement of blood lactate; use vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg in patients refractory to fluid therapy, in patients with an initial lactate ≥36 mg/dL (≥4 mmol/L), or who are persistently hypotensive (i.e. MAP < 65 mmHg); and assess volume status and perfusion using either a repeat focused exam or two of the following methods—measurement of central venous pressure, measurement of central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2), bedside cardiovascular ultrasound and dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness with passive leg raise or fluid challenge. One bundle dealing with basic therapies, the “Sepsis Six”, has been shown to improve outcomes in septic patients. If the six factors are completed within the first hour following recognition of sepsis, the associated mortality has been reported to reduce by as much as 50%. The six factors are the following: administer high-flow oxygen to maintain target oxygen saturations greater than 94% (or 88–92% in people at risk of hypercapnic respiratory failure), take blood cultures, give intravenous antibiotics, start intravenous fluid resuscitation, check lactate level and monitor hourly urine output. Patients who are refractory to initial treatments, in particular those with septic shock, may require invasive monitoring and consideration for organ support, so management on a High Dependency Unit or ICU may well be required. Patients who fail to respond to the rapid delivery of adequate volumes of intravenous fluids are in septic shock. The immediate priority in this group of patients is the restoration of the circulation and oxygen delivery. Monitoring of vital signs and response to fluid therapy is essential. Assessment of oxygenation via pulse oximetry and serial lactate measurements should be performed, along with monitoring of urinary output. A failure of lactate to improve with therapy is indicative of a poor outcome. Lactate clearance has been shown to correlate positively with survival. All patients receiving vasopressors should have an arterial catheter inserted as soon as it is practical to do so to aid more accurate monitoring of arterial blood pressure.

Keywords

Sepsis definition Septic shock definition SIRS SOFA score qSOFA MODS Severe infection Sepsis bundle Sepsis guidelines Diagnostic stewardship Antibiotic stewardship 

References

  1. 1.
    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:775–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:762–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest. 1992;101:1644–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1250–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vincent J-L, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):344–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein Klouwenberg PM, Ong DS, Bonten MJ, et al. Classification of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: the impact of minor variations in data capture and definition of SIRS criteria. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:811–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vincent JL, Opal SM, Marshal JC. Sepsis definitions: time for change. Lancet. 2013;381:774–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Pilcher D, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1629–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Churpek MM, Zadravecz FJ, Winslow C, et al. Incidence and prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunctions in ward patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192:958–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304–77. Crit Care Med 2017; 45: 486–552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E, et al. Prognostic accuracy of sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department. JAMA. 2017;317:301–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the sofa score, sirs criteria, and qsofa score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2017;317:290–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henning DJ, et al. An emergency department validation of the SEP 3 Sepsis and Septic Shock definitions and comparison with 1992 consensus definitions. Am Emerg Med. 2017;70:544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casanova JL, Abel L. The genetic theory of infectious diseases: a brief history and selected illustrations. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2013;14:215–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis induced immunosuppression from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13:862–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Immunosuppression in sepsis a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:260.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deutschmann CS, Tracey KJ. Sepsis: current dogma and new perspective. Immunity. 2014;40:463–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mira J, et al. Sepsis pathophysiology, chronic critical illness and persistent inflammation Immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:253–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shankar-Hari M, Rubenfeld GD. Understanding long term outcomes following sepsis: implication and challenges. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2016;18:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Monneret G, Venet F. Sepsis induced immune alterations monitoring by flow cytometry as a promising tool for individualized therapy. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016;90:376–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vincent JL, Bassetti M, Francois B, et al. Advances in antibiotic therapy in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2016;20:133.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kollef MH, Sherman G, Ward S. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections: a risk factor for hospital mortality among critically ill patients. Chest. 1999;115:462–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibrahim EH, Sherman G, Ward S. Treatment of bloodstream infections on patients outcomes in the ICU setting. Chest. 2000;118:146–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar A, Daniel R, Kenneth W. Duration of hypotension before initiation effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of serviva in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1589–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1749–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vazquez-Guillamet C. Using the number needed to treat to assess appropriate antimicrobial therapy as a determinant of out come in severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:2342–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tabah A, Koulenti D, Lapland K. Characteristics and determinants of out come of hospital acquired bloodstream infections in intensive care units: the EUROBACT International color study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:1930–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raman G, Avendano E, Berger S. Appropriate initial antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with gram negative infections: systematic review and meta analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:395.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J. The SOFA (Sepsis related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vincent JL. Dear SIRS, I am sorry to say that I do not like you. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:372–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Working group on Sepsis Related Problems of the European Society of intensive Care Medicine. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter prospective study. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1793–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nair GB, Niederman MS. Ventilator associated pneumonia: present understanding and ongoing debates. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:34–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fabregas N, Ewing S, Torres A. Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post mortem lung biopsies. Thorax. 1999;54:867–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lauzier F, Ruest A, Cook Canadian critical care trials group. The value of pretest probability and modified clinical pulmonary infection score to diagnose ventilator associated pneumonia. J Crit Care. 2008;23:50–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zagli G, Cozzolino M, Terreni A. Diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia: a pilot, exploratory analysis of a new score based on procalcitonin and chest echography. Chest. 2014;146:1578–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rhee JY, Kwon KT, Ki HK. Scoring systems for prediction of mortality in patients with intensive care unit acquired sepsis: a comparison of the PITT bacteremia score and the APACHE II scoring systems. Shock. 2009;31:146–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vasudevan A, Mukhopadhyay A, Li J. A prediction tool for nosocomial multi drug resistant gram negative bacilli infections in critically ill patients: prospective observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:615.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tumbarello M, Trecarichi EM, Tumietto F. Predictive models for identification of hospitalized patients harboring KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:3514–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Webb A, Dascomb K, Stenehjem E. Derivation and multicenter validation of the drug resistance in pneumoniae clinical prediction score. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:2652–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Burham JP, Lane MA, Kollef MH. Impact of sepsis classification and multidrug resistance status on outcome among patients treated with appropriate therapy. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1580–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simon L. Serum procalcitonin and c reactive protein levels as markers of bacterial infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:206–17.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Christ-Crain M, Stolz D, Bingisser R. Procalcitonin guidance of antibiotic therapy in community acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:84–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schuetz P, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R. Effect of procalcitonin based guidelines versus standard guidelines on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections. JAMA. 2009;302:1059–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouadma L, Luyt CE, Tubach F. Use of procalcitonin to reduce patients’ exposure to antibiotics in intensive care units (PRORATA trial) a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;375:463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schuetz P, Muller B, Christ-Crain M. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):CD007498.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wacker C, Prkno A, Brunkhorst FM. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:426–35.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Guan J, Zhaofen L, Hong L. Dynamic change of procalcitonin rather than concentration itself, is predictive of serviva in septic shock patients when beyond 10ng/ml. J Shock. 2011;36:570–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Georgopoulou AP, Savva A, Giamarellos-Bourboullis EJ. Early changes of procalcitonin may advise about prognosis and appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy in sepsis. J Crit Care. 2011;26:331.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mitsuma SF, Mansour MK, Dekker JP. Promising new assays and technologies for the diagnosis and management of infectious diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:996–1002.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bassetti M, De Waele JJ, Eiggmann P. Preventive and therapeutic strategies in critically ill patients with highly resistant bacteria. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:776–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    De Jong E, Van Oers JA, Beishuizen A. Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomized, controller, open label trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:819–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Linscheid P, Seboek D, Zulewski H. Autocrine/paracrine role of inflammation mediated calcitonin gene related and adremedullin expression in human adipose tissue. Endocrinology. 2005;146:2699–707.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Christ-Crain M, Morgenthaler NG, Strunck J. Mid regional pro adrenomedullin as a prognostic marker in sepsis; an observation study. Crit Care. 2005;9:R816–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Angeletti S, Dicuonzo G, Fioravanti M, Procalcito N. Procalcitonin levels in surgical patients at risk of candidemia. J Infect. 2010;60:425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Angeletti S, et al. Procalcitonin, MR proadrenomedullin and cytokines measurement in sepsis diagnosis: advantages from test combination. Dis Markers. 2015;2015:951532.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Angeletti S, Battistoni F, Fioravanti M. Procalcitonin and mid regional pro-adrenomedullin test combination in sepsis diagnosis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:1059–67.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Suberviola B, Castellanos-Ortega A, Ruiz A. Hospital mortality prognostication in sepsis using the new biomarkers suPAR and pro ADM in a single determination on ICU admission. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1945–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Charles PE, Castro C, Ruiz-Santana S. Serum procalcitonin levels in critically ill patients colonized with Candida Spp:new clues for the early recognition of invasive candidiasis. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:2146–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    The PRISM Investigators. Early, goal-directed therapy for septic shock — a patient-level meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2223–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    The ProCESS Investigators. A randomized trial of protocol based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1683–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1301–11.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    The ARISE Investigators and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Berger RE. Management of septic shock: a woman with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2282–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Seymour CW. Time to tretment and Mortality during mandate emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2235–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Liu VX, et al. The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196:934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lee CC, et al. Timing of appropriate empirical antimicrobial administration and outcome of adults with community onset bacteremia. Crit Care. 2017;21:119.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Peltan ID, et al. Physician variation in time to antimicrobial treatment for septic patients presenting to emergency department. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1011–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Leisman DA. Delayed second dose antibiotics for patients admitted from the emergency department with sepsis: prevalence, risk factors and outcomes. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:956–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sterling SA, Miller WR, Pryor J, Puskarich MA, Jones AE. The impact of timing of antibiotics on outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1907–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Puskarich MA, Trzeciak S, Shapiro NI, et al. Association between timing of antibiotic administration and mortality from septic shock in patients treated with a quantitative resuscitation protocol. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2066–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jansen TC, van Bommel J, Schoonderbeek FJ, et al. Early lactate-guided therapy in intensive care unit patients: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:752–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rhee C, Kadri SS, Danner RL, et al. Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes. Crit Care. 2016;20:89.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Lin D, et al. Assessment and control for confounding by indication in observational studies. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:749–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gropen TI, Gagliano PJ, Blake CA, et al. Quality improvement in acute stroke: the New York State Stroke Center Designation Project. Neurology. 2006;67:88–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cooke CR, Iwashyna TJ. Sepsis mandates: improving inpatient care while advancing quality improvement. JAMA. 2014;312:1397–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Walkey AJ, Wiener RS. Hospital case volume and outcomes among patients hospitalized with severe sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:548–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bloos F, et al., for the Medusa Study group. Impact of compliance with infection management guidelines on outcome in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective observational multicenter study. Crit Care. 2014;18:R42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Boyer A, Vargas F, Coste F, et al. Influence of surgical treatment timing on mortality from necrotizing soft tissue infections requiring intensive care management. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:847–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kobayashi L, Konstantinidis A, Shackelford S, et al. Necrotizing soft tissue infections: delayed surgical treatment is associated with increased number of surgical debridements and morbidity. J Trauma. 2011;71:1400–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Martinez ML, et al., for the Edusepsis Study group. Impact of source control in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:11–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Opal SM. Source control in sepsis urgent or not so fast. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:130–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bone RC. Sepsis, the sepsis syndrome, multi-organ failure: a plea for comparable definitions. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:332–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Brown T, Ghelani-Allen A, Yeung D, et al. Comparative effectiveness of physician diagnosis and guideline definitions in identifying sepsis patients in the emergency department. J Crit Care. 2015;30:71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Cohen J, Opal S, Calandra T. Sepsis studies need new direction. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:503–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Deutschman CS. Imprecise medicine: the limitations of sepsis-3. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:857–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Whittle J, Walker D. The new international sepsis guidelines (sepsis-3): the central message remains. Br J Hosp Med. 2016;77:208–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Marshall JC. Sepsis-3: what is the meaning of a definition? Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1459–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Petersen E, Zumla A. To have sepsis or to be septic – is the difference between these clinical conditions important? Int J Infect Dis. 2016;48:118–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vincent J-L, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Klein Klouwenberg PM, Ong DS, Bonten MJ, et al. Classification of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock: the impact of minorvariations in data capture and definition of SIRS criteria. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:811–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Sepsis: recognition, diagnosis and early management. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng51.
  93. 93.
    NHS England. Improving outcomes for patients with sepsis. A cross system action plan. 2015. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Sepsis-Action-Plan-23.12.15-v1.pdf.
  94. 94.
    Daniels R, Nutbeam T, McNamara G, et al. The sepsis six and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle: a prospective observational cohort study. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:507–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Prescott HC, Calfee CS, Thompson BT, et al. Toward smarter lumping and smarter splitting: rethinking strategies for sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome clinical trial design. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:147–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Cohen J, Vincent JL, Adhikari NK, et al. Sepsis: a roadmap for future research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:581–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bulger EM, Maier RV, Sperry J. A novel drug for treatment of necrotizing soft-tissue infections: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:528–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ibrahim EH, Sherman G, Ward S, et al. The influence of inadequate antimicrobial treatment of bloodstream infections on patient outcomes in the ICU setting. Chest. 2000;118:146–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:165–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2769-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B, et al. Early combination antibiotic therapy yields improved survival compared with monotherapy in septic shock: a propensity-matched analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1773–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kumar A, Safdar N, Kethireddy S, et al. A survival benefit of combination antibiotic therapy for serious infections associated with sepsis and septic shock is contingent only on the risk of death: a meta-analytic/meta-regression study. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1651–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Brunkhorst FM, Oppert M, Marx G, et al. Effect of empirical treatment with moxifloxacin and meropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:2390–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Cprek JB, Gallagher JC. Ertapenem-containing double-carbapenem therapy for treatment of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:669–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Oliva A, D’Abramo A, D’Agostino C, et al. Synergistic activity and effectiveness of a double-carbapenem regimen in pan drug resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1718–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Bass SN, Bauer SR, Neuner EA, et al. Impact of combination antimicrobial therapy on mortality risk for critically ill patients with carbapenem-resistant bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3748–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Cotta MO, Roberts JA, Lipman J. Antibiotic dose optimization in critically ill patients. Med Intensiva. 2015;39:563–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58:1072–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, et al. Continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis: a multicenter double blind, randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:236–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Bates A, Joffe AR. Is there a role for continuous infusion of betalactam antibiotics in severe sepsis? J Thorac Dis. 2016;8:E437–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, openlabelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1535–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Dulhunty JM, Roberts JA, Davis JS, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of continuous versus intermittent β-lactam infusion in severe sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192:1298–305.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Roberts JA, Abdul-Aziz MH, Davis JS, et al. Continuous versus Intermittent β-lactam infusion in severe sepsis: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:681–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Jager NG, van Hest RM, Lipman J, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-infective agents in critically ill patients. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2016;9:961–79.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Jerwood S, Hankins M, Cohen J. A pilot clinical trial to evaluate a novel time-to-positivity assay to measure the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy for septic patients in intensive care. J Crit Care. 2012;27:320–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hohn A, Heising B, Schutte JK, et al. Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402:1.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Shehabi Y, Sterba M, Garrett PM, et al. Procalcitonin algorithm in critically ill adults with undifferentiated infection or suspected sepsis. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190:1102–10.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Schuetz P, Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-based guidelines vs standard guidelines on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: the ProHOSP randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:1059–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    de Jong E, van Oers JA, Beishuizen A, et al. Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled open label trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:819–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Westwood M, Ramaekers B, Whiting P, et al. Procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic therapy for the treatment of sepsis in Intensive Care settings and for suspected bacterial infection in emergency department settings: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:v.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Arena F, et al. Molecular antibiogram in diagnostic clinical microbiology: advantages and challenges. Future Microbiol. 2017;12:361–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Messacor K, et al. Implementation of rapid molecular infectious disease diagnostics: the role of diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:715–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Tulli
    • 1
  1. 1.Quality and Safety DepartmentTuscany Region Healthcare AgencyFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations