Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

End of life decisions in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: To identify patient, disease and organizational factors associated with decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies (DFLSTs) in critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute respiratory failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the international EFRAIM prospective study, which enrolled 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to 68 ICUs in 16 countries between October 2015 and June 2016. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DFLSTs. RESULTS: The main causes of immunosuppression were hematological malignancies (50%) and solid tumor (38%). Patients had a median age of 63 yo (54-71). A pulmonologist was involved in the patient management in 38% of cases. DFLSTs had been implemented in 28% of the patients. The following variables were independently associated with DFLSTs: 1) patient-related: older age (OR 1.02 per one year increase, 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.01-1.03,P < 0.001), poor performance status (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.98-3.93, P < 0.001); 2) disease-related: shock (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.45-2.75, P < 0.001), liver failure (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.21, P = 0.006), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.31-2.46, P < 0.001); 3) organizational: having a pulmonologist involved in patient management (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.36-2.52, P < 0.001), and the presence of a critical care outreach services (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.38, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: A DFLST is made in one in four immunocompromised patient admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. Involving a pulmonologist in patient's management is associated with less non beneficial care.

Etiologies and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Failure in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Insight Into the EFRAIM Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory complications of solid organ transplant (SOT) are a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge when requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We aimed at describing this challenge in a prospective cohort of SOT recipients admitted in the ICU. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of an international cohort of immunocompromised patients admitted in the ICU for an acute respiratory failure, we analyzed all SOT recipients and compared their severity, etiologic diagnosis, prognosis, and outcome according to the performance of an invasive diagnostic strategy (encompassing a fiber-optic bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage), the type of transplanted organ, and the need of invasive ventilation at day 1. RESULTS: Among 1611 patients included in the primary study, 142 were SOT recipients (kidney, n = 73; 51.4%; lung, n = 33; 23.2%; liver, n = 29; 20.4%; heart, n = 7; 4.9%). Lung transplant recipients were younger than other SOT recipients, and severity did not differ across type of received organ. An invasive diagnostic strategy was more frequently performed in lung transplant recipients with a trend toward a higher rate of bacterial etiology in lung than kidney transplant recipients. Overall ICU survival of SOT recipients was 75.4%. Invasive diagnostic strategy, type of transplanted organ, and need of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 1 did not affect ICU prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: ICU management of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure in SOT recipients translated into a low ICU mortality rate, whatever the transplanted organ or the acute respiratory failure cause. The post-ICU burden of acute respiratory failure SOT recipients remains to be investigated.

Diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients.

An increasing number of critically ill patients are immunocompromised. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), chiefly due to pulmonary infection, is the leading reason for ICU admission. Identifying the cause of ARF increases the chances of survival, but may be extremely challenging, as the underlying disease, treatments, and infection combine to create complex clinical pictures. In addition, there may be more than one infectious agent, and the pulmonary manifestations may be related to both infectious and non-infectious insults. Clinically or microbiologically documented bacterial pneumonia accounts for one-third of cases of ARF in immunocompromised patients. Early antibiotic therapy is recommended but decreases the chances of identifying the causative organism(s) to about 50%. Viruses are the second most common cause of severe respiratory infections. Positive tests for a virus in respiratory samples do not necessarily indicate a role for the virus in the current acute illness. Invasive fungal infections (Aspergillus, Mucorales, and Pneumocystis jirovecii) account for about 15% of severe respiratory infections, whereas parasites rarely cause severe acute infections in immunocompromised patients. This review focuses on the diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients. Special attention is given to newly validated diagnostic tests designed to be used on non-invasive samples or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and capable of increasing the likelihood of an early etiological diagnosis.

Severe flu management: a point of view.

Annual flu seasons are typically characterized by changes in types and subtypes of influenza, with variations in terms of severity. Despite remarkable improvements in the prevention and management of patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of influenza, annual seasonal influenza continues to be associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Admission to the intensive care unit is required for patients with severe forms of seasonal influenza infection, with primary pneumonia being present in most of the cases. This review summarizes the most recent knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment strategies in critically ill patients with influenza, focused on diagnostic testing methods, antiviral therapy, use of corticosteroids, antibacterial and antifungal therapy, and supportive measures. The review focuses on diagnostic testing methods, antiviral therapy, use of corticosteroids, antibacterial and antifungal therapy, supportive measures and relevant existing evidence, in order to provide the non-expert clinician a useful overview. An enhanced understanding of current diagnostic and treatment aspects of influenza infection can contribute to improve outcomes and reduce mortality among ICU patients with influenza.