Sepsis is a preventable public health problem.

There is a paradigm shift happening for sepsis. Sepsis is no longer solely conceptualized as problem of individual patients treated in emergency departments and intensive care units but also as one that is addressed as public health issue with population- and systems-based solutions. We offer a conceptual framework for sepsis as a public health problem by adapting the traditional model of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.

How to avoid fluid overload.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights the recent evidence describing the outcomes associated with fluid overload in critically ill patients and provides an overview of fluid management strategies aimed at preventing fluid overload during the resuscitation of patients with shock. RECENT FINDINGS: Fluid overload is a common complication of fluid resuscitation and is associated with increased hospital costs, morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Fluid management goals differ during the resuscitation, optimization, stabilization and evacuation phases of fluid resuscitation. To prevent fluid overload, strategies that reduce excessive fluid infusions and emphasize the removal of accumulated fluids should be implemented.

Lessons Learned from In-Person Conferences in the Times of COVID-19.

Scientific societies and conference secretariats have recently resumed in-person meetings after a long pause owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some safety measures continue to be implemented at these in-person events to limit the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). With increased numbers of waves of infection, caused by the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, additional information is needed to ensure maximal safety at in-person events. The MEX-DART case study was conducted at the in-person Hep-DART 2021 conference, which was held in Los Cabos, Mexico, in December 2021. Many COVID-19 safety measures were implemented, and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the conference was tested onsite. In this study, we highlight the specific conditions and safety measures set in place at the conference. In addition to vaccination requirements, social distancing, and mask wearing, daily rapid testing was implemented for the duration of the conference. At the end of the 4-day meeting, none of the 166 delegates (and family members attending the conference) had tested antigen positive for SARS-CoV-2. Two delegates tested positive in the week after the conference; the timing of their positive test result suggests that they contracted the virus during their travels home or during postconference vacationing. We believe that this model can serve as a helpful template for organizing future in-person meetings in the era of COVID-19 and any other respiratory virus pandemics of the future. While the outcomes of this case study are encouraging, seasonal surges in respiratory virus infections such as SARS-CoV-2, RSV, and influenza virus incidence suggest that continued caution is warranted.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis.

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.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Opportunities for Infection and Blood Purification Therapies.

Patients with infection can develop sepsis, and their mortality can be high. An important aspect in the treatment of sepsis is adequate management of the infection. DATA SOURCES: Using a modified Delphi approach, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign research committee recently published a series of 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. STUDY SELECTION: Task force members with specific expertise were tasked with generating expanded reviews for all infection questions and a subset of adjunctive therapy questions from the larger list of sepsis priorities. Each question was addressed by one of the six task force members. DATA EXTRACTION: In-depth reviews were then edited by the group as a whole, with added input from the committee cochairs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six questions were addressed: 1) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock? 2) does optimization of antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics impact patient outcomes in sepsis? 3) should viral reactivation resulting from sepsis-induced immunosuppression be treated with antiviral therapy in critically ill septic patients? 4) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice? 5) what is the role of lung-protective ventilation in sepsis patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome? and 6) how do we determine the efficacy of "blood purification" therapies such as endotoxin absorbers, cytokine absorbers, and plasmapheresis. CONCLUSIONS: The research committee members for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign aimed to explore research questions in order to provide existing evidence and highlight areas of uncertainty and future directions.

In response: Letter on update to the Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03509350. Registered on 26 April 2018.