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.

Core sepsis-related competencies for medical students: an international consensus by Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition which may arise from infection in any organ system and requires early recognition and management. Healthcare professionals working in any specialty may need to manage patients with sepsis. Educating medical students about this condition may be an effective way to ensure all future doctors have sufficient ability to diagnose and treat septic patients. However, there is currently no consensus on what competencies medical students should achieve regarding sepsis recognition and treatment. This study aims to outline what sepsis-related competencies medical students should achieve by the end of their medical student training in both high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions and in low or lower-middle income countries/regions. METHODS: Two separate panels from high or upper-middle income and low or lower-middle income countries/regions participated in a Delphi method to suggest and rank sepsis competencies for medical students. Each panel consisted of 13-18 key stakeholders of medical education and doctors in specialties where sepsis is a common problem (both specialists and trainees). Panelists came from all continents, except Antarctica. RESULTS: The panels reached consensus on 38 essential sepsis competencies in low or lower-middle income countries/regions and 33 in high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions. These include competencies such as definition of sepsis and septic shock and urgency of antibiotic treatment. In the low or lower-middle income countries/regions group, consensus was also achieved for competencies ranked as very important, and was achieved in 4/5 competencies rated as moderately important. In the high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions group, consensus was achieved in 41/57 competencies rated as very important but only 6/11 competencies rated as moderately important. CONCLUSION: Medical schools should consider developing curricula to address essential competencies, as a minimum, but also consider addressing competencies rated as very or moderately important.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Mechanical ventilation in septic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature on mechanical ventilation strategies in patients with septic shock. RECENT FINDINGS: Indirect clinical trial evidence has refined the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Weaning strategies and devices have also been recently evaluated. The role of lung protective ventilation in patients with healthy lungs, while recognized, still needs to be further refined. The possible detrimental effects of spontaneous breathing in patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome is increasingly recognized, but clinical trial evidence is still lacking to confirm this hypothesis. A new concept of lung and diaphragm protective is emerging in the critical care literature, but its application will need a complex intervention implementation approach to allow adequate scrutiny of this concept and uptake by clinicians. SUMMARY: Many advances in the management of the mechanically ventilated patient with sepsis and septic shock have occurred in recent years, but clinical trial evidence is still necessary to translate new hypotheses to the bedside and find the right balance between benefits and risks of these new strategies.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

Effect of Increasing Blood Pressure With Noradrenaline on the Microcirculation of Patients With Septic Shock and Previous Arterial Hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether an increase in mean arterial pressure in patients with septic shock and previous systemic arterial hypertension changes microcirculatory and systemic hemodynamic variables compared with patients without arterial hypertension (control). DESIGN: Prospective, nonblinded, interventional study. SETTING: Three ICUs in two teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: After informed consent, we included patients older than 18 years with septic shock for at least 6 hours, sedated, and under mechanical ventilation. We paired patients with and without arterial hypertension by age. INTERVENTIONS: After obtaining systemic and microcirculation baseline hemodynamic variables (time 0), we increased noradrenaline dose to elevate mean arterial pressure up to 85-90 mm Hg before collecting a new set of measurements (time 1). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 patients (20 in each group). There was no significant difference in age between the groups. After the rise in mean arterial pressure, there was a significant increase in cardiac index and a slight but significant reduction in lactate in both groups. We observed a significant improvement in the proportion of perfused vessels (control: 57.2 ± 14% to 66 ± 14.8%; arterial hypertension: 61.4 ± 12.3% to 70.8 ± 7.1%; groups: p = 0.29; T0 and T1: p < 0.001; group and time interaction: p = 0.85); perfused vessels density (control: 15.6 ± 4 mm/mm to 18.6 ± 4.5 mm/mm; arterial hypertension: 16.4 ± 3.5 mm/mm to 19.1 ± 3 mm/mm; groups: p = 0.51; T0 and T1: p < 0.001; group and time interaction: p = 0.70), and microcirculatory flow index (control: 2.1 ± 0.6 to 2.4 ± 0.6; arterial hypertension: 2.1 ± 0.5 to 2.6 ± 0.2; groups: p = 0.71; T0 and T1: p = 0.002; group and time interaction: p = 0.45) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing mean arterial pressure with noradrenaline in septic shock patients improves density and flow in small vessels of sublingual microcirculation. However, this improvement occurs both in patients with previous arterial hypertension and in those without arterial hypertension.

Lipid metabolism impairment in patients with sepsis secondary to hospital acquired pneumonia, a proteomic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a dysregulated host response to infection and a major cause of death worldwide. Respiratory tract infections account for most sepsis cases and depending on the place of acquisition, i.e., community or hospital acquired infection, differ in etiology, antimicrobial resistance and outcomes. Accordingly, the host response may be different in septic patients secondary to community-acquired pneumonia and hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP). Proteomic analysis is a useful approach to evaluate broad alterations in biological pathways that take place during sepsis. Here we evaluated plasma proteome changes in sepsis secondary to HAP. METHODS: Plasma samples were obtained from patients (n = 27) at admission and after 7 days of follow-up, and were analyzed according to the patients' outcomes. The patients' proteome profiles were compared with healthy volunteers (n = 23). Pooled plasma samples were labeled with isobaric tag for relative and absolute quantitationand analyzed by LC-MS/MS. We used bioinformatics tools to find altered functions and pathways. Results were validated using biochemical estimations and ELISA tests. RESULTS: We identified 159 altered proteins in septic patients; most of them were common when comparing patients' outcomes, both at admission and after 7 days. The top altered biological processes were acute inflammatory response, response to wounding, blood coagulation and homeostasis. Lipid metabolism emerged as the main altered function in patients, with HDL as a central node in the network analysis, interacting with downregulated proteins, such as APOA4, APOB, APOC1, APOL1, SAA4 and PON1. Validation tests showed reduced plasma levels of total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins ApoA1 and ApoB100, and Paraoxonase 1 in HAP patients. CONCLUSION: Proteomic analysis pointed to impairment of lipid metabolism as a major change in septic patients secondary to HAP, which was further validated by the reduced levels of cholesterol moieties and apolipoproteins in plasma. Our results stress the involvement of lipids in the pathogenesis of sepsis, which is in accordance with previous reports supporting the role of lipid moieties in pathogen toxin clearance and in modulating inflammatory responses.