Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Brief Communication
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Report
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Series
Cardiac Critical Care, Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Invited Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Original Article
Cardiac Critical Care, Point of Technique
Cardiac Critical Care, Review Article
Case Report
Case Report, Cardiac Critical Care
Case Series, Cardiac Critical Care
Editorial
Editorial, Cardiac Critical Care
JCCC Quiz, Cardiac Critical Care
Legends in Cardiac Sciences
Letter To Editor Response
Letter to the Editor
Narrative Review, Cardiac Critical Care
Original Article
Original Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Perspective Insights
Point of Technique
Point of Technique, Cardiac Critical Care
Point of View, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article
Review Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article, Evidence Based Medicine
Short Communication, Cardiac Critical Care
Surgical Technique
Surgical Technique, Cardiology
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Video Case Report
Video Commentary
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Brief Communication
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Report
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Series
Cardiac Critical Care, Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Invited Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Original Article
Cardiac Critical Care, Point of Technique
Cardiac Critical Care, Review Article
Case Report
Case Report, Cardiac Critical Care
Case Series, Cardiac Critical Care
Editorial
Editorial, Cardiac Critical Care
JCCC Quiz, Cardiac Critical Care
Legends in Cardiac Sciences
Letter To Editor Response
Letter to the Editor
Narrative Review, Cardiac Critical Care
Original Article
Original Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Perspective Insights
Point of Technique
Point of Technique, Cardiac Critical Care
Point of View, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article
Review Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article, Evidence Based Medicine
Short Communication, Cardiac Critical Care
Surgical Technique
Surgical Technique, Cardiology
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Video Case Report
Video Commentary
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Brief Communication
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Report
Cardiac Critical Care, Case Series
Cardiac Critical Care, Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Invited Editorial
Cardiac Critical Care, Original Article
Cardiac Critical Care, Point of Technique
Cardiac Critical Care, Review Article
Case Report
Case Report, Cardiac Critical Care
Case Series, Cardiac Critical Care
Editorial
Editorial, Cardiac Critical Care
JCCC Quiz, Cardiac Critical Care
Legends in Cardiac Sciences
Letter To Editor Response
Letter to the Editor
Narrative Review, Cardiac Critical Care
Original Article
Original Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Perspective Insights
Point of Technique
Point of Technique, Cardiac Critical Care
Point of View, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article
Review Article, Cardiac Critical Care
Review Article, Evidence Based Medicine
Short Communication, Cardiac Critical Care
Surgical Technique
Surgical Technique, Cardiology
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Video Case Report
Video Commentary
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
1 (
1
); 03-05
doi:
10.1055/s-0037-1604204

Sepsis and Septic Shock

Medanta Institute of Critical Care and Anesthesiology, Medanta–The Medicity, Gurugram, Haryana, India
Address for correspondence Dr. Yatin Mehta, MD, MNAMS, FRCA, FAMS, FICCM, FIACTA, FTEE Medanta Institute of Critical Care and Anesthesiology Medanta–The Medicity, Sector 38, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 India yatinmehta@hotmail.com
Licence
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Official Publication of The Simulation Society (TSS), accredited by International Society of Cardiovascular Ultrasound (ISCU) and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

The term “sepsis” is derived from Greek word “sepo” meaning “I rot” and was first introduced in the poems of Homer (ca. 18th century bc). Sepsis and septic shock are among the major causes of mortality in critically ill patients. Recent Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOAP) study across Europe estimated that more than 35% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients had sepsis at some point during their ICU stay.1

As per the World Health Organization (WHO), pneumonia is the leading cause of sepsis. Data for sepsis-related death in low-income group countries are not readily available, but if we consider deaths due to pneumonia as surrogate for sepsis-related deaths, in 2012, a threefold higher death rate (91 deaths per 100,000 persons) has been reported in low-income countries than in high-income countries.2, 3

To determine the incidence and outcome of severe sepsis among adult patients, a multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in four intensive therapy units in India from June 2006 to June 2009, which reported the incidence of severe sepsis as 16.45% of all admissions and a hospital mortality of 65.2%.4 Economic impact of ICU admission in a country like India cannot be ignored. As per one estimate, one episode of hospitalization is enough to account for 58% of per capita expenditure pushing 2.2% below the poverty line, and more than 40% of those admitted to an ICU borrow money or sell assets.5

Historically, the mortality associated with sepsis and septic shock has been approximately 50 to 75%.6, 7, 8 Introduction of antibiotics approximately 50 to 60 years ago brought the mortality rate in the range of 30 to 50%, and subsequent advancement in treatment reduced mortality to approximately 18%. However, despite reduction in mortality rate, the overall number of patients dying from sepsis is increasing.9

After the introduction of the term “sepsis” approximately 2,700 years ago, it was only in 1914 that Hugo Schottmüller formally defined septicemia as a disease caused by microbial invasion into bloodstream. Despite this early definition, terms such as “septicemia,” “sepsis,” “toxemia,” and “bacteremia” were all used interchangeably. There was a need for standard definition, and in 1991, a joint conference of American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SSCM) established the first definition of sepsis and introduced the terms “systemic inflammatory response syndrome” (SIRS), “severe sepsis,” and “septic shock.”

In 2001, SCCM, ACCP, and the European Society of Critical Care Medicine (ESCIM) revised sepsis definition by consensus and added an expanded diagnostic criterion. They also recognized stages of sepsis designated by the acronym PIRO (predisposition, infection, response to the infectious challenge, and organ dysfunction). Both the 1991 and 2001 definitions were based on SIRS. Moving forward, not only was the need for two or more SIRS criteria found to be insufficiently specific, but it also failed to identify patients at risk of death. It was also argued that SIRS neither reflects the severity of the disease nor indicates that there is maladaptive host response.10

In 2016, SCCM and ESICM gave us the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock aimed at identifying patients with increased risk of both mortality and prolonged ICU stay. A Delphi process was used to reach a consensus definition, which resulted in use of increment in SOFA score by 2, elevated lactate levels despite fluid resuscitation, and vasopressor-dependent hypotension as criteria in the new definition.11

As per 2016 definition, sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. Organ dysfunction is defined as an increase of ≥ 2 points in the SOFA score. Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory and cellular/metabolic abnormalities are profound enough to substantially increase mortality. The clinical criteria to identify septic shock are the presence of sepsis and persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mm Hg, along with lactate ≥ 2 mmol/L despite adequate volume resuscitation. The term “severe sepsis” has been discarded.

The major implications of the new definition include the recognition of role of dysregulated host response in pathogenesis of sepsis and septic shock, the use of increment of SOFA score by 2 to identify the patients with sepsis, and the use of quick SOFA (qSOFA) score to identify septic patients outside of ICU.

Basic components in management of sepsis and septic shock include initial resuscitation, vasopressor/inotropic and hemodynamic support, early antibiotic, source control, diagnosis (cultures and imaging), supportive care (ventilation, dialysis, transfusion, etc.), and infection prevention. In 2004 and subsequently in 2004 and 2012, SCCM and ESCIM published protocol-based “surviving sepsis” guidelines (Table 1). The bundle approach advocated by these guidelines was shown to reduce mortality.12

Table 1
For management of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock

Old

New

Sepsis

SIRS + suspected infection

*The 2012 definition required suspected infection and presence of some of the following: general variables, inflammatory variables, hemodynamic variables, organ dysfunction variables, and tissue perfusion variables

Suspected or documented infection

+

Increase in SOFA score by ≥ 2

or

For out-of-ICU patients 2 out of 3 criteria for qSOFA

Hypotension systolic BP ≤ 100 mm Hg

GCS ≤ 13

Respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min

Severe sepsis

Sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion or organ dysfunction

 • Sepsis-induced hypotension

 • Lactate above upper limits laboratory normal

 • Urine output < 0.5 mL/kg/h for > 2 h despite adequate fluid resuscitation

 • Acute lung injury with Pao2/Fio2 < 250 in the absence of pneumonia as infection source

 • Creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL (176.8 μmol/L)

 • Bilirubin > 2 mg/dL (34.2 μmol/L)

 • Platelet count < 100,000 μL

 • Coagulopathy (INR > 1.5)

Septic shock

Sepsis + hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation

Sepsis

+

Vasopressor requirement to maintain MAP ≥ 65

+

Lactate > 2 mmol despite adequate fluid resuscitation

Abbreviations: BP, blood pressure; GCS, Glasgow coma scale; ICU, intensive care unit; INR, international normalized ratio; MAP, mean arterial pressure; qSOFA, quick SOFA; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.

Adapted from Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016;315:801–810.

Early goal-directed therapy introduced by Rivers et al in 2001 remained an important component of protocol in all the three guidelines. In 2014, however, the protocol-based resuscitation was challenged by ARISE (Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation), ProMISe (Protocolized Management In Sepsis), and ProCESS (Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock) trial, and this led to a changes in the 6 hours bundle (3 hours bundle remained unchanged) by the surviving sepsis guideline. The measurements of central venous pressure and central venous oxygen saturation are not required as per the new bundle.

The situation is far from perfect, however, and some problems with the new definitions have been pointed out. SOFA is complex to calculate and qSOFA has been validated only out of ICU and retrospectively. Sepsis 3 did not include data from low-income group countries.

The strengthening of basic care and preventive strategies are extremely important in a developing country such as India. For example, in an international study, it was found that device-associated infections in the ICUs in developing countries pose greater threats to patient safety than in US ICUs.13

Moving forward, new developments offer a peek into the changes we can expect in future. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated an independent association between an increasingly positive fluid balance and increased mortality in patient with sepsis.1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 The concept of fluid administration guided by fluid responsiveness is gaining grounds, and tools such as carotid Doppler peak velocity, passive leg raising, and echocardiography have been shown to help gauge fluid responsiveness.24, 25 Counterintuitively, the use of β-blockers to control heart rate in patients with septic shock on high dose of norepinephrine has been shown to reduce mortality.26

Search and evaluation for molecular methods for rapid detection of infection, therapeutic targets (angiopoietin 1, Slit2-N, sphingosine 1 phosphate, histones, pentraxins, etc) may yield practice changing results in future. New sepsis alerts tools based on concepts such as wearable physiologic monitoring devices, cognitive ergonomics, human-centered interface design, use of more sophisticated mathematical modeling, and machine learning techniques may become available in future. The availability of new biomarkers may enable better prognostication. Pediatric sepsis biomarker risk model (PERSEVERE) is one such example that has been recently validated.

Long-term consequences of septic shock such as neuropsychological impairment, physical impairment, sepsis-induced inflammation and cardiovascular risk, sepsis-induced immunosuppression, health care resource use, long-term health-related quality of life, and mortality are being recognized, and they provide impetus to changes and additions in management strategy.

References

  1. , , , . Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):344-353. , et al; Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients Investigators.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. The top 10 causes of death. World Health Organization. WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Global health data repository: death rates. World Health Organization. WHO
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , . Epidemiology of severe sepsis in India: an update. Crit Care. 2010;14(01):382.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Report 2002. World bank. World Bank
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , . Occurrence of serious bacterial infections since the introduction of antibacterial agents. JAMA. 1959;84:2188-2197.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . The effect of antibiotics on mortality from infectious diseases in Sweden and Finland. Am J Public Health. 1976;66(12):1180-1184.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Gram-negative bacteremia. IV. Re-evaluation of clinical features and treatment in 612 patients. Am J Med. 1980;68(3):344-355.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , . The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(16):1546-1554.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , . Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1629-1638.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , . 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(8):775-787. , et al; Sepsis Definitions Task Force.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , . The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):367-374. , et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . Device-associated nosocomial infections in 55 intensive care units of 8 developing countries. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(8):582-591. , et al; International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , . Prognostic value of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its potential role in guiding fluid therapy in critically ill septic patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:86.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . Review of a large clinical series: association of cumulative fluid balance on outcome in acute lung injury: a retrospective review of the ARDSnet tidal volume study cohort. J Intensive Care Med. 2009;24(1):35-46. ; NIH NHLBI ARDS Network.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , . Negative fluid balance predicts survival in patients with septic shock: a retrospective pilot study. Chest. 2000;117(6):1749-1754.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , . The importance of fluid management in acute lung injury secondary to septic shock. Chest. 2009;136(1):102-109. , et al.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , . Impact of extravascular lung water index on outcomes of severe sepsis patients in a medical intensive care unit. Respir Med. 2008;102(7):956-961.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , . A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure. Crit Care. 2008;12(3):R74. ; Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) Investigators.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , . Fluid accumulation, survival and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2009;76(4):422-427. , et al; Program to Improve Care in Acute Renal Disease (PICARD) Study Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , , , . Fluid balance and cardiac function in septic shock as predictors of hospital mortality. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R246.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , , . Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. , , . A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care. 2015;19:251.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , , . Limited echocardiography-guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes. J Crit Care. 2014;29(5):700-705.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. , , . Vasopressors during sepsis: selection and targets. Clin Chest Med. 2016;37(2):251-262.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , . Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1683-1691. , et al.
    [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
87

PDF downloads
52
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections