Surviving sepsis campaign: Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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 (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links. lww.com/CCM/D636) 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1334-1356
Number of pages23
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume46
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Septic Shock
Sepsis
Research
Telecommunications
Precision Medicine
Resuscitation
Epidemiology
Committee Membership
Politics
Therapeutics
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Intensive Care Units
Guidelines
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Morbidity
Mortality

Keywords

  • Priorities
  • Research
  • Sepsis∗Septic shock
  • Surviving Sepsis Campaign

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Coopersmith, C. M., De Backer, D., Deutschman, C. S., Ferrer, R., Lat, I., Machado, F. R., ... Rhodes, A. (2018). Surviving sepsis campaign: Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Critical Care Medicine, 46(8), 1334-1356. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225

Surviving sepsis campaign : Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. / Coopersmith, Craig M.; De Backer, Daniel; Deutschman, Clifford S.; Ferrer, Ricard; Lat, Ishaq; Machado, Flavia R.; Martin, Greg S.; Martin-Loeches, Ignacio; Nunnally, Mark E.; Antonelli, Massimo; Evans, Laura E.; Hellman, Judith; Jog, Sameer; Kesecioglu, Jozef; Levy, Mitchell M.; Rhodes, Andrew.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 8, 01.01.2018, p. 1334-1356.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coopersmith, CM, De Backer, D, Deutschman, CS, Ferrer, R, Lat, I, Machado, FR, Martin, GS, Martin-Loeches, I, Nunnally, ME, Antonelli, M, Evans, LE, Hellman, J, Jog, S, Kesecioglu, J, Levy, MM & Rhodes, A 2018, 'Surviving sepsis campaign: Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock', Critical Care Medicine, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1334-1356. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225
Coopersmith CM, De Backer D, Deutschman CS, Ferrer R, Lat I, Machado FR et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Critical Care Medicine. 2018 Jan 1;46(8):1334-1356. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225
Coopersmith, Craig M. ; De Backer, Daniel ; Deutschman, Clifford S. ; Ferrer, Ricard ; Lat, Ishaq ; Machado, Flavia R. ; Martin, Greg S. ; Martin-Loeches, Ignacio ; Nunnally, Mark E. ; Antonelli, Massimo ; Evans, Laura E. ; Hellman, Judith ; Jog, Sameer ; Kesecioglu, Jozef ; Levy, Mitchell M. ; Rhodes, Andrew. / Surviving sepsis campaign : Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 46, No. 8. pp. 1334-1356.
@article{0f683097a5d74aeaaaa6abef4e17c98f,
title = "Surviving sepsis campaign: Research priorities for sepsis and septic shock",
abstract = "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 (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links. lww.com/CCM/D636) 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.",
keywords = "Priorities, Research, Sepsis∗Septic shock, Surviving Sepsis Campaign",
author = "Coopersmith, {Craig M.} and {De Backer}, Daniel and Deutschman, {Clifford S.} and Ricard Ferrer and Ishaq Lat and Machado, {Flavia R.} and Martin, {Greg S.} and Ignacio Martin-Loeches and Nunnally, {Mark E.} and Massimo Antonelli and Evans, {Laura E.} and Judith Hellman and Sameer Jog and Jozef Kesecioglu and Levy, {Mitchell M.} and Andrew Rhodes",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "1334--1356",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

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

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

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 (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links. lww.com/CCM/D636) 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 (Supplemental Table 1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links. lww.com/CCM/D636) 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∗Septic shock

KW - Surviving Sepsis Campaign

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056490915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056490915&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003225

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85056490915

VL - 46

SP - 1334

EP - 1356

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 8

ER -