Mark E Nunnally1, Ricard Ferrer2,3, Greg S Martin4, Ignacio Martin-Loeches5,6, Flavia R Machado7, Daniel De Backer8, Craig M Coopersmith9, Clifford S Deutschman10,11. 1. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. mark.nunnally@nyulangone.org. 2. Intensive Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Shock, Organ Dysfunction and Resuscitation (SODIR) Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), Department of Intensive Care Medicine, St. James's University Hospital, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland. 6. Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Universidad de Barcelona, CIBERes, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 8. Chirec Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 9. Department of Surgery and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 10. Department of Pediatrics, Cohen Children's Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA. 11. The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research/ Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Abstract
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.
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 sepsispatients, 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.
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuck Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Foster Gesten; Hallie C Prescott; Marcus E Friedrich; Theodore J Iwashyna; Gary S Phillips; Stanley Lemeshow; Tiffany Osborn; Kathleen M Terry; Mitchell M Levy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Craig M Coopersmith; Massimo Antonelli; Seth R Bauer; Clifford S Deutschman; Laura E Evans; Ricard Ferrer; Judith Hellman; Sameer Jog; Jozef Kesecioglu; Niranjan Kissoon; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Mark E Nunnally; Hallie C Prescott; Andrew Rhodes; Daniel Talmor; Pierre Tissieres; Daniel De Backer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: David F Gaieski; Mark E Mikkelsen; Roger A Band; Jesse M Pines; Richard Massone; Frances F Furia; Frances S Shofer; Munish Goyal Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Craig M Coopersmith; Daniel De Backer; Clifford S Deutschman; Ricard Ferrer; Ishaq Lat; Flavia R Machado; Greg S Martin; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Mark E Nunnally; Massimo Antonelli; Laura E Evans; Judith Hellman; Sameer Jog; Jozef Kesecioglu; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nicola Fiotti; Filippo Mearelli; Filippo Giorgio Di Girolamo; Luigi Mario Castello; Alessio Nunnari; Salvatore Di Somma; Enrico Lupia; Efrem Colonetti; Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Giuseppe Montrucchio; Carlo Giansante; Gian Carlo Avanzi; Gianni Biolo Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2022-02-09