Highlights
- •Sepsis is a major global health problem and challenges physicians over the world.
- •Sepsis is now defined according to new definitions of Sepsis-3.
- •Sepsis-3 criteria demands the presence of organ disfunction thus delaying treatment.
- •SOFA criteria are too extensive and difficult to apply outside intensive care units.
- •An association of old SIRS and new qSOFA should be validated by adequate trials.
Abstract
Sepsis is a major global health problem and represents a challenge for physicians
all over the world. The knowledge of sepsis and septic shock is a topic of interest
among the scientific community and society in general.
New guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock were developed in 2016, providing
an update on this area. In Sepsis-3 new definitions for sepsis and septic shock were
published.
The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss and compare the new criteria of
2016 with the old criteria, purposing at the same time an alternative approach for
this topic. SOFA criteria (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) are more complete,
but too extensive and usually difficult to apply outside the intensive care units,
therefore inducing potentially delay in the proper treatment.
We purpose combined criteria for the selection of sepsis patients. Initially, we could
apply qSOFA (quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment) criteria, due to its easy
application, associated with the SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria,
allowing to select the patients who are infected and need faster treatment. In that
way we would use the best of old and newest criteria, allowing the early selection
of patients who are infected and require faster treatment, while the search for a
better and faster tool continues.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to European Journal of Internal MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Surviving Sepsis campaign.Crit Care Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255
- SIRS in the time of Sepsis-3.Chest. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.006
- Novel biomarkers for sepsis: a narrative review.Eur J Intern Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.030
- Sepsis: current definition, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management.Nutr Clin Pract. 2017; 32: 296-308https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533617695243
- New definitions for Sepsis and septic shock.JAMA. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0290
- Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis.Chest. 1992; https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.101.6.1644
- Changing definitions of Sepsis.Turkish J Anesth Reanim. 2017; 45: 129-138https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2017.93753
- 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS international Sepsis definitions conference.Crit Care Med. 2003; 31: 1250-1256https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3B
- The third international consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3).JAMA. 2016; 315: 801-810https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287
- SIRS, qSOFA and new sepsis definition.J Thorac Dis. 2017; 9: 943-945https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.03.125
- Pre-sepsis: a necessary concept to complete the SEPSIS-3 picture?.J Crit Care. 2017; 44: 148https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.10.041
- The new sepsis consensus definitions: the good, the bad and the ugly.Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42: 2024-2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4604-0
- The influence of a change in septic shock definitions on intensive care epidemiology and outcome: comparison of sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 definitions.Infect Dis (Auckl). 2017; : 1-7https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2017.1383630
- Comparison of the performance between Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 in ICUs in China.Shock. 2017; 48: 301-306https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000000868
- Defining sepsis on the wards: results of a multi-Centre point-prevalence study comparing two sepsis definitions.Anaesthesia. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14062
- The impact of the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition on previously defined septic shock patients*.Crit Care Med. 2017; 45: 1436-1442https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002512
- An emergency department validation of the SEP-3 sepsis and septic shock definitions and comparison with 1992 consensus definitions.Ann Emerg Med. 2017; 70: 544-552.e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.008
- What definition should we use for Sepsis and septic shock?*.Crit Care Med. 2017; 45: 1564-1567https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002544
- Current clinical controversies in the management of sepsis.J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2016; 46: 263-269https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2016.413
- Serial evaluation of the sofa score to predict outcome in critically ill patients.JAMA. 2001; 286: 1754-1758
- Assessment of mortality by qSOFA in patients with sepsis outside ICU: a post hoc subgroup analysis by the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Sepsis Registry Study Group.J Infect Chemother. 2017; 23: 757-762https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2017.07.005
- 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: 290https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.20328
- Low sensitivity of qSOFA SIRS criteria and sepsis definition to identify infected patients at risk of complication in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department triage.Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017; 25: 108https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0449-y
- The recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock: a guide for non-intensivists.Postgrad Med J. 2017; 93: 626-634https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134519
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 16, 2018
Accepted:
June 4,
2018
Received in revised form:
May 23,
2018
Received:
February 7,
2018
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
