Skip to main content
The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine logoLink to The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
. 2019 Dec 20;92(4):629–640.

Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis: An Ominous Trajectory From Infection To Death

César Caraballo a, Fabián Jaimes b,c,d,*
PMCID: PMC6913810  PMID: 31866778

Abstract

Sepsis is a highly complex and lethal syndrome with highly heterogeneous clinical manifestations that makes it difficult to detect and treat. It is also one of the major and most urgent global public health challenges. More than 30 million people are diagnosed with sepsis each year, with 5 million attributable deaths and long-term sequalae among survivors. The current international consensus defines sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection. Over the past decades substantial research has increased the understanding of its pathophysiology. The immune response induces a severe macro and microcirculatory dysfunction that leads to a profound global hypoperfusion, injuring multiple organs. Consequently, patients with sepsis might present dysfunction of virtually any system, regardless of the site of infection. The organs more frequently affected are kidneys, liver, lungs, heart, central nervous system, and hematologic system. This multiple organ failure is the hallmark of sepsis and determines patients’ course from infection to recovery or death. There are tools to assess the severity of the disease that can also help to guide treatment, like the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. However, sepsis disease process is vastly heterogeneous, which could explain why interventions targeted to directly intervene its mechanisms have shown unsuccessful results and predicting outcomes with accuracy is still elusive. Thus, it is required to implement strong public health strategies and leverage novel technologies in research to improve outcomes and mitigate the burden of sepsis and septic shock worldwide.

Keywords: sepsis, septic shock, infection, organ dysfunction, organ failure, mortality

Introduction

Sepsis is an intricate, heterogeneous, and highly lethal syndrome that can be hard to identify and treat [1]. Defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection [2], sepsis is one of the major and most urgent public health challenges worldwide [3,4]. It is estimated that more than 30 million people globally are diagnosed with sepsis each year, leading to 5 million deaths [5], with high economic burden and long-term morbidity among survivors [6]. Particularly, annually in the United States sepsis is present in 1.7 million hospitalized patients and contributes to 270,00 deaths [7].

Prognosis in sepsis is influenced by characteristics of the patient (e.g. age, immunologic status, comorbidities, among others) [8-10] and characteristics of the infection (e.g. pathogen type, virulence, site of infection, inoculum, among others) [8,11,12]. Although combinations of such characteristics influence the clinical presentation and risk, sepsis is a common pathway from infection to death, in which progressive organ dysfunction is the mean. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the features found in patients with sepsis that lead to multiple organ failure and death.

From Infection to Organ Dysfunction

Sepsis definition has changed over the last few decades as our understanding of it has increased [2,13,14], and its current definition emphasizes the presence of organ dysfunction (Table 1). The cornerstone of sepsis-induced organ damage is the instauration and perpetuation of a mismatch between perfusion and tissues metabolic requirements. Inflammation-induced cardiac dysfunction and systemic blood volume redistribution have pivotal roles on this, but are exacerbated by an impaired tissue oxygen utilization [15]. This sepsis-induced global hypoperfusion state has common clinical manifestations such as hypotension, decreased capillary refill time, mottled skin, and cold extremities. Besides the early initiation of antibiotic therapy and source control—which are essential for sepsis treatment and significantly reduces the risk of death [16,17]—the recommended early resuscitation strategies for patients with sepsis or septic shock intend to reestablish an adequate organ perfusion [16].

Table 1. Sepsis and Septic Shock Clinical Criteria Over Time.

Consensus Clinical criteria
Sepsis-1, 1991 [13] Sepsis:
Systemic response to an infection, manifested by two or more of the following components of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS): a) temperature >38°C or <36°C; b) heart rate >90 beats per minute; c) respiratory rate >20 breaths per minute or PaCO2 <32mmHg; and d) white cell blood count >12,000 cells per mL, <4,000 cells per mL, or >10% immature forms.
Severe sepsis:
Sepsis associated with organ dysfunction, hypoperfusion, or hypotension.
Septic shock:
Sepsis-induced hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg or an SBP reduction ≥40 mmHg from baseline) despite adequate fluid resuscitation, or requiring vasopressor agents, along with the presence of perfusion abnormalities.
Sepsis-2, 2001 [14] Sepsis:
Documented or suspected infection with some signs of systemic inflammation, which were expanded from the SIRS criteria to include abnormalities from 5 major categories (general variables, inflammatory variables, hemodynamic variables, organ dysfunction variables, and tissue perfusion variables).
Severe sepsis:
Sepsis associated with organ dysfunction, which can be estimated with the SOFA score.
Septic shock:
Persistent arterial hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg, MAP <60 mmHg, or reduction in SBP >40 mmHg from baseline) despite adequate fluid resuscitation and unexplained by other causes.
Sepsis-3, 2015 [2] Sepsis:
Suspected or documented infection and acute organ dysfunction (defined as an increase of ≥ 2 points in SOFA points).
Septic shock:
Sepsis and vasopressor therapy needed to elevate MAP ≥65 mmHg and lactate >2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation.

PaCO2: partial pressure of carbon dioxide; SBP: systolic blood pressure; MAP: mean arterial blood pressure; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.

Vascular Dysfunction: the Failure of the Circuit

Several changes occur simultaneously in the systemic vascular bed in patients with sepsis, with an increasing interest in the importance of microcirculatory injury and dysfunction [18]. Capillary permeability is increased, compromising the effective vascular volume and therefore systemic perfusion. This paracellular leakage seems to be caused by a diffuse endothelial injury and dysfunction mediated by proinflammatory molecules [19]. Particularly, recent research underscores the important role in the imbalance of the angiopoietin-tyrosine kinase with immunoglobulin-like loop epidermal growth factor domain ligand-receptor system (Ang-Tie) in patients with sepsis. The augmented expression of Ang-2 and the inhibition of Ang-1 blocks Tie-2 receptor and increases vascular permeability, causing tissue edema [20]. Its prognostic value has been demonstrated in clinical studies where high serum Ang-2/Ang-1 ratio was associated with increased severity of organ dysfunction and higher mortality, even in early sepsis [21-23].

Although in most cases these volume distribution abnormalities can be countered by a successful resuscitation with an adequate and rational vascular volume expansion [24], some patients have a concomitant persistent vasodilatory state that impedes adequate perfusion even after achieving an euvolemic state. This clinical scenario is known as septic shock, the most severe manifestation of sepsis. Vascular smooth muscle fails to contract with neurohormonal stimulus, resulting in a profound systemic arterial and venous vasodilation [25] that reduces the pressure gradient required for venous return and, subsequently, decreases cardiac output [26]. Although the mechanisms of such a dramatic vascular dysfunction are not well understood, inflammation-induced endothelial dysfunction seems to be associated with an over-expression of an inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) [27]. The subsequent excessive production of nitric oxide (NO) directly induces vascular smooth muscle cells relaxation and hyperpolarization, preventing their response to vasoconstrictors and thus perpetuating hypotension [25,28]. A deficiency of vasopressin with paradoxical simultaneous downregulation of vasoconstrictive receptors has also been described during septic shock, but its mechanism in humans is yet to be fully understood and therapies targeted directly to reverse these maladaptive mechanisms have been unsuccessful [29-32].

Cardiac Dysfunction: the Failure of the Pump

After volume resuscitation or vasopressors initiation, venous return augments and patients enter in a hyperdynamic profile characterized by high cardiac output and low systemic vascular resistance [33]. This response, however, is often accompanied by a depressed myocardial function. Pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), depress cardiomyocyte contractility and induces expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) in the coronary endothelium, which mediates infiltration of neutrophils to the myocardium [34,35]. Importantly, NO exacerbates mitochondrial dysfunction diminishing myocardial oxygen utilization, perpetuates release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and downregulates β-adrenergic receptors [35,36].

Consequently, almost 1 out of 3 patients with sepsis presents reversible left ventricular systolic impairment, driven by hypokinesia and reduced ejection fraction, with unclear implication on survival [37]. On the other hand, left diastolic dysfunction is present in 1 out of 2 patients and is associated with an 80 percent increased risk of death [38]. Similarly, nearly 1 out of 2 patients with sepsis have right ventricular dysfunction, with an associated 60 percent increased risk of death [39].

Furthermore, chronotropic response, the ability to modify the heart rate according to systemic requirements, is also often impaired in sepsis [40]. A recent study found that those with low heart rate variability had nearly six times higher hazard of death [41]. On the other hand, sepsis is also associated with incidental clinical cardiac events like acute heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, and non-ischemic myocardial injury, among others [42-45]. In a recent study, Patel et al. found that 13 percent of patients hospitalized due to sepsis experienced at least one incidental cardiac event and had 30 percent higher risk of death than those who did not [46].

Microcirculation and Cellular Dysfunction: the Failure in Final Oxygen Delivery and Utilization

While most therapeutic efforts are directed to solve the overt hemodynamic dysfunction, changes in the microcirculation have an important role in perpetuating the organ injury even after restoration of hemodynamic abnormalities. Various mechanisms can explain this microcirculatory failure. The endothelial dysfunction and injury over-expression of iNOS is not homogeneous thorough all organ beds, causing shunting of the flow and hypoperfusion on the underexpresed tissues [47]. This situation is aggravated by occlusion of terminal circulation vessels due to sepsis-induced erythrocyte decreased deformability, greater platelet aggregability, and microthrombi formation [27,48]. Moreover, NO has a pivotal role in the impairment of cellular oxygen utilization. Regardless of the restoration of adequate tissue perfusion or oxygen delivery, NO inhibits mitochondrial respiration by disrupting the respiratory chain, which depletes ATP and causes cellular dysfunction and organ injury [27,49,50].

Indicators of Perfusion Status

The overall effect of such an inadequate systemic oxygen delivery and its impaired cellular utilization has major implications for tissues metabolism, increasing anaerobic glycolysis. This results in a higher production of lactate as a byproduct of pyruvate metabolism, as less of it enters Krebs aerobic cycle. Hyperlactatemia, defined as a serum concentration >2 mmol/L, is associated with higher risk of death in patients with sepsis, independently of hemodynamic status [51,52]. Its prognostic relevance is underscored by the fact that those with hyperlactatemia alone (i.e. no hypotension or need for vasopressor therapy) have a higher risk of death than those with hypotension and normal serum lactate levels [53]. This phenotype of normotension with hyperlactatemia have led to the term of “cryptic shock” [15]. Thus, lactate is commonly used as an indicator of patients’ perfusion status and its sequential measurement is included in the recommended approach to patients with sepsis as its clearance seems indicative of an effective resuscitation [16,54]. Recent studies have assessed the association between hyperlactatemia and clinical signs to assess the perfusion status and guide resuscitation, aiming to identify a bed-side option. However, an observational study found no association between lactate levels and capillary refill time [55] and a clinical trial found no statistically significant benefit in survival by using the same clinical perfusion indicator versus lactate [56].

Strategies Aimed to Restore Tissue Perfusion

The cornerstone of sepsis and septic shock initial treatment is to overcome such systemic hypoperfusion [16,24]. As mortality risk increases with the duration of hypotension [57], current guidelines recommend that at least 30 mL/Kg of crystalloids should be given during the first 3 hours of treatment, with additional fluids administration guided by a comprehensive and frequent hemodynamic status reassessment to avoid volume overload [16]. However, the strength of the recommendation is weak, and some studies suggest that such an aggressive early goal-directed therapy is not beneficial [58] and might actually increase the risk of adverse outcomes—mainly respiratory failure and death—in resource-limited settings [59-61]. As evidence suggests that a more conservative approach is effective and safe [62], there has been an increased interest in a more personalized fluid management [63,64].

For those with persistent hypotension despite adequate volume resuscitation, hemodynamic drug support is recommended with the goal of achieving and maintaining a mean arterial blood pressure target of ≥ 65 mmHg [16]. Norepinephrine is the recommended first-choice vasopressor due to its effectiveness and lower rate of adverse events when compared to other options like dopamine [16,65], and its adoption as such is consistent among intensive care specialists worldwide [66]. However, a proportion of patients do not achieve the mean arterial pressure target despite high doses of this catecholamine, reflecting the high underlying heterogeneity in the pathophysiology of this syndrome. These non-responders have higher mortality risk, their optimal treatment is still not well known, and are the focus of recent research in critical care [67,68]. Recently, Chawla et al. proposed that in order to avoid prolonged hypotension, every patient with septic shock should be started on multiple vasopressors of different mechanism of action and de-escalated afterwards according to their response, similar to the “broad spectrum antibiotics” approach [69].

Beyond Circulatory Failure: Sepsis Implications on Other Organs

Given that sepsis is a continuous process of concomitant insults occurring thorough the body, its damage should not be understood as isolated events on different systems. However, for conceptualization we here describe how sepsis affects specific organs beyond the circulatory system and their prognostic implications.

Lungs

Sepsis is the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [70] and 40 percent of patients with sepsis or septic shock develop it [71]. ARDS is characterized by an acute respiratory failure with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates caused by alveolar injury and an increased pulmonary vascular permeability to protein-rich fluid. Although its etiology is yet to be fully understood, studies have shown that this alveolar barrier injury is mediated by proinflammatory cytokines—such as tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) or IL-1β—the widespread endothelial barrier dysfunction, platelet activation with microthrombi formation, and neutrophils extracellular traps formation [72-74]. This edema and alveolar damage increase physiological dead space impairing gas exchange and causing severe hypoxemia and hypercapnia [75]. The severity of the condition is evaluated using the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), as well as the mechanical ventilatory parameters required by the patient. Mortality among those with ARDS is high, ranging from 35 percent to 46 percent [76]. Furthermore, those with sepsis-related ARDS have higher 60-day mortality than those with ARDS caused by any other reason [77]. Whereas these patients benefit from lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies to aid respiratory muscles and maintain adequate gas exchange [78], pharmacological interventions to prevent the occurrence or mitigate the impact of ARDS on survival have been unsuccessful [79,80].

Kidneys

The renal system is another common target of this progressive organ dysfunction. Sepsis is the most common contributing factor for acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically-ill patients, [81] and more than half of patients with sepsis or septic shock develop it [82,83]. AKI is defined as a serum creatinine increase of ≥ 0.3 mg/dl in 48 hours, 50 percent increase from baseline in 7 days or urine output < 0.5ml/kg/h for more than 6 hours [84]. Patients with sepsis-associated AKI have 62 percent and 36 percent higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared to those with sepsis without AKI [85]and to those with non-sepsis associated AKI, respectively [86]. Despite its high frequency, the underlying mechanisms of sepsis-associated AKI are not completely understood. Renal hypoperfusion leading to acute tubular necrosis has been the paradigm, but current evidence suggests an even more important role of the local microcirculation and inflammatory signals, including ischemia-reperfusion injury, oxidative stress, and tubular apoptosis [87,88]. Moreover, sepsis treatment can also contribute to AKI by the usage of nephrotoxic drugs and excessive or less-physiological fluid resuscitation. Volume overload increases central venous pressure, which also increases renal vascular pressure, causing subsequent organ edema, increased intracapsular pressure and decreased glomerular filtration rate [89,90]. There is a recent interest is the role of resuscitation fluid selection in the development of sepsis-associated AKI. When compared to balanced crystalloids (e.g. lactated Ringer’s solution), evidence suggests that the high concentration of chloride in normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) might be associated with worse renal outcomes and survival [91-95].

Coagulation System

Pro-inflammatory cytokines also increase the endothelial luminal expression and serum circulation of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and VCAM-1, contributing to platelet adhesion and coagulation cascade activation. Additionally, the anticoagulant mechanisms are downregulated by the same proinflammatory cytokines. Endothelial production of thrombomodulin—a glycoprotein that inhibits conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin by binding thrombin—is severely impaired, reducing activation of Protein C, a strong anticoagulant with fibrinolytic properties [96,97]. Interestingly, this seems to be propagated by neutrophils extracellular traps, which induce platelet aggregation, thrombin production, and fibrin clots formation [98]. Then, microthrombi formation in small vessels further impairs perfusion and oxygen delivery, causing organ injury and dysfunction [23].

Overall, this procoagulant up-regulation causes platelet consumption and coagulation factors depletion, leading to the classical sepsis-associated thrombocytopenia and overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), especially with expression of tissue factor and secretion of von Willebrand factor when monocytes and endothelial cells are activated to the point of cytokine release following injury [99]. Among patients with sepsis and septic shock, up to 55 percent and 61 percent have thrombocytopenia and/or DIC, respectively [100,101]. Both of these conditions are associated with worse outcomes such as higher risk of major bleeding events and death [97,101-105]. The current treatment of these coagulation abnormalities consist on prevention and treatment of major bleeding events [106], whereas therapies aimed to intervene the pathophysiology of this condition have been unsuccessful [107-109].

Liver

The liver is far from a bystander in sepsis: it is a regulator of the inflammatory process and a target of host response. When exposed to lipopolysaccharides, Kupffer cells increase the release of IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α [110,111]. In response to the proinflammatory cytokines, hepatocytes release acute-phase proteins (APPs) into systemic circulation, with widespread proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory effects [112]. Thus, it has been hypothesized that hepatocytes, via APPs, have a pivotal role in balancing the immune response in sepsis, preventing an excessive inflammatory or immunosuppressed state [111]. This regulatory role gains importance when considering that up to 46 percent of patients with sepsis have concomitant hepatic dysfunction [113], which has been associated with a higher 28-day mortality [114]. Two major mechanisms seem to explain the liver injury and subsequent dysfunction in sepsis: hypoxic hepatitis and sepsis-induced cholestasis. Hypoxic hepatitis is commonly defined as a clinical setting that leads to reduced oxygen delivery or utilization by the liver (e.g. cardiac, respiratory, or circulatory failure), with an increase of at least 20-fold the upper limit of normal serum aminotransferase levels, and without other potential causes of liver injury [115,116]. In sepsis, the profound hemodynamic alterations, microthrombi formation, sinusoidal obstruction, and endothelium dysfunction impairs liver perfusion leading to subsequent injury and hypoxic hepatitis [112]. In a recent study that included 1116 critically ill patients with this condition [117], sepsis was the second leading predisposing factor of hypoxic hepatitis, with an in-hospital mortality of 53 percent, only behind cardiac failure.

On the other hand, the definition of sepsis-induced cholestasis is not as well standardized, its etiology is still to be elucidated, and its prognostic relevance is not clear. Sepsis-induced cholestasis is understood as an impaired bile formation and defective flow caused by a non-obstructive intrahepatic insult [112], and its diagnosis is commonly made by an elevation of total serum bilirubin greater than 2 mg/dl and aminotransferases greater of at least 2-fold the upper normal limit [118]. Animal models have suggested that proinflammatory cytokines alter the hepatocytes expression of bile acids transporters, reverting the normal bile acid transport into the blood. Furthermore, pro-inflammatory cytokines and NO lead to ductular cholestasis by inhibiting cholangiocytes secretion [119,120].

Central Nervous System

Up to 70 percent of critically-ill patients with sepsis have any degree of sepsis-associated encephalopathy [121]. Beyond the direct infections of the brain and its surrounding tissues (e.g. encephalitis or meningitis), sepsis injures the central nervous system by a wide range of mechanisms, with the mismatch of systemic perfusion over metabolic requirements having an essential role. The severe systemic hemodynamic instability can overcome the central nervous system finely tuned perfusion regulation mechanisms, leading to critical brain ischemic lesions [122]. Additionally, the onset of cardiac arrhythmias and sepsis-induced coagulopathy may further explain the increased the risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke among patients with sepsis [123-126]. On the other hand, the marked inflammatory response contributes to microcirculatory failure and disruption of the blood-brain barrier, allowing inflammatory mediators and neurotoxins into brain tissue [127]. Importantly, the increased NO diffuses even through the intact blood-brain barrier causing oxidative stress, which can lead to neuronal dysfunction and apoptosis [128]. The disruption of cholinergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission also play a key role in this acute brain dysfunction [129,130], which can range from delirium to seizures and comma [127]. Moreover, when critical areas—like the brainstem—are compromised by these insults, the autonomic dysfunction is exacerbated, perpetuating the hemodynamic instability and increasing the risk of death [129,131].

Estimating the Magnitude and Importance of the Organ Dysfunction

Standard and accurate criteria for organs dysfunction are of great importance in critical care since it helps clinicians to systematically follow patients’ progress throughout the hospitalization and adjust treatment accordingly. Since the different potential organ dysfunction we have mentioned so far does not occur on a strictly linear or isolated manner but are part of a highly complex and integrated process—and not all occur in every patient—the challenge for the clinicians and researchers has been to objectively assess the true magnitude or “amount” of organ failure for each patient. Accordingly, in 1996 Vincent et al. [132] presented the Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, with the goal of objectively estimating the degree of organ dysfunction over time in patients with sepsis. SOFA evaluates the respiratory, hematologic, cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, and central nervous system of each patient, assigning each system a value from 0 (normal organ function) to 4 (most abnormal organ function). Therefore, SOFA score ranges from 0 to 24 (Table 2).

Table 2. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Scorea.

Score
System 0 1 2 3 4
Respiratory
PaO2/FIO2, mm Hg ≥400 <400 <300 <200 with respiratory support <100 with respiratory support
Coagulation
Platelets, ×103/μl ≥150 <150 <100 <50 <20
Liver
Bilirubin, mg/dl <1.2 1.2-1.9 2.0-5.9 6.0-11.9 >12.0
Cardiovascular
Mean arterial pressure or adrenergic agent administered for at least 1 hour ≥70 mm Hg <70 mm Hg Dopamine <5 or dobutamine (any dose)b Dopamine 5.1-15
or epinephrine ≤0.1
or norepinephrine ≤0.1b
Dopamine >15
or epinephrine >0.1
or norepinephrine >0.1b
Central nervous system
Glasgow Coma score 15 13-14 10-12 6-9 <6
Renal
Creatinine or urine output <1.2 mg/dl 1.2-1.9 mg/dl 2.0-3.4 mg/dl 3.5-4.9 mg/dl or <500 ml/day >5.0 mg/dl or <200 ml/day

PaO2: partial pressure of arterial oxygen; FIO2: fraction of inspired oxygen. aAdapted from Vincent JL et al. [132] bDoses are presented as μg/kg/min

Although it was not originally intended as a predictive model, the association between organ dysfunction and death has inspired research about the usage of SOFA to predict mortality in patients with sepsis, showing good predictive performance [133-137]. Notably, the latest consensus complemented the conceptual definition of sepsis by defining life-threatening organ dysfunction as an acute change in total SOFA score ≥ 2 points consequent to the infection [2], since such change was associated with approximately 10 percent increased mortality risk [137]. A pending issue, however, is the improvement of the cardiovascular component of SOFA, as it does not directly measure that organ dysfunction, but the requirement of specific interventions that have changed in the last years [138].

The components of SOFA require tests and resources that might not be readily available at bedside outside intensive care units (ICU), which limits its application on other settings. Given that nearly half of patients with sepsis present in the emergency department [139], alternative tools have been developed for early sepsis detection outside the ICU. Commonly used scores that use bedside-only measures with this intention are the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) [140], the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) [141], and the quick SOFA (qSOFA) [137]. MEWS considers patients systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, and level of consciousness, whereas NEWS also considers the SpO2. On the other hand, qSOFA was introduced in the latest sepsis consensus and assess for abnormalities in respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and mental status. However, it has performed worse than MEWS and NEWS identifying critically-ill infected patients [142,143], despite the fact that these were not developed to screen for sepsis but to identify patients with high-risk of major in-hospital complications or ICU admission. The leverage of novel research methods and digital resources, such as artificial intelligence and electronic health records, have shown promise in improving the accuracy of personalized risk estimation [144]. In a remarkable example of this, Delahanty et al. [145] used machine learning methods to identify patients at high risk of sepsis in more than 2 million medical encounters, developing a new sepsis screening tool that outperformed the rest.

Future Perspectives to Reduce the Global Burden of Sepsis

Even though sepsis is recognized as an urgent health challenge worldwide [4], its current global burden may be underestimated due to scarcity of information available from lower and middle-income countries, where most cases of sepsis might occur [146,147]. Thus, to address this disparity in representation, the improvements in acute and individual treatment of sepsis need to be backed-up by strong public health strategies that improves its understanding worldwide. The African Sepsis Alliance signed the Kampala Declaration in 2017 and the Latin-American Institute of Sepsis signed the São Paulo Declaration in 2018, both calling for urgent national and international actions to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of sepsis and to dedicate human and financial resources to these goals [148,149]. Hopefully, these calls for action will resonate and the increased understanding of sepsis burden in lower and middle-income regions will help design strategies that improve care and survival.

Conclusion

Sepsis is a highly complex and lethal syndrome with a convoluted pathway from infection to death consisting of multiple organ dysfunction. Each organ injury contributes to the patient’s risk of death, with an intricate crosstalk among the whole system. Despite its high prevalence and intensive research, the vast underlying heterogeneity of sepsis might be the reason for the failure of interventions beyond supportive measures—including infection control—in improving outcomes. A more personalized approach is needed, and the recent advances using novel research methodologies have provided promising results in this regard. This research and subsequent interventions will need the support from strong public health initiatives worldwide. All these efforts will continue to help patients with sepsis to change their trajectory away from death and towards recovery.

Glossary

Ang-Tie

angiopoietin-tyrosine kinase with immunoglobulin-like loop epidermal growth factor domain ligand-receptor

iNOS

inducible nitric oxide synthase

NO

nitric oxide

IL-1β

interleukin-1β

IL-6

interleukin-6

VCAM-1

vascular cell adhesion molecule-1

ATP

adenosine triphosphate

ARDS

acute respiratory distress syndrome

TNF-α

tumor necrosis factor alpha

PaO2

partial pressure of arterial oxygen

FIO2

fraction of inspired oxygen

AKI

acute kidney injury

ICAM-1

intercellular adhesion molecule-1

DIC

disseminated intravascular coagulation

APPs

acute-phase proteins

SOFA

Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment

Author Contributions

CC and FJ designed the manuscript. CC did the literature review and wrote the first draft, with FJ overseeing and contributing. Both authors contributed and approved the final version of the manuscript. Neither CC nor FJ received funding for the preparation or submission of this work.

References

  1. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(9):840–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. World Health Organization Seventieth World Health Assembly. Improving the prevention, diagnosis and clinical management of sepsis. 2017. Accessed on May 5, 2019 Available at: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA70/A70_R7-en.pdf?ua=1&ua=1
  4. Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S. Recognizing Sepsis as a Global Health Priority - A WHO Resolution. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):414–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, et al. Assessment of Global Incidence and Mortality of Hospital-treated Sepsis. Current Estimates and Limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tiru B, DiNino EK, Orenstein A, Mailloux PT, Pesaturo A, Gupta A, et al. The Economic and Humanistic Burden of Severe Sepsis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(9):925–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, Murphy DJ, Seymour CW, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals Using Clinical vs Claims Data, 2009-2014Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals, 2009-2014Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals, 2009-2014. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1241–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mayr FB, Yende S, Angus DC. Epidemiology of severe sepsis. Virulence. 2014;5(1):4–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rowe TA, McKoy JM. Sepsis in Older Adults. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2017;31(4):731–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sinapidis D, Kosmas V, Vittoros V, Koutelidakis IM, Pantazi A, Stefos A, et al. Progression into sepsis: an individualized process varying by the interaction of comorbidities with the underlying infection. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Caraballo C, Ascuntar J, Hincapie C, Restrepo C, Bernal E, Jaimes F. Association between site of infection and in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis admitted to emergency departments of tertiary hospitals in Medellin, Colombia. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(1):47–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Klastrup V, Hvass AM, Mackenhauer J, Fuursted K, Schonheyder HC, Kirkegaard H. Site of infection and mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. A cohort study of patients admitted to a Danish general intensive care unit. Infect Dis (Lond). 2016;48(10):726–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1992;20(6):864–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Howell MD, Donnino M, Clardy P, Talmor D, Shapiro NI. Occult hypoperfusion and mortality in patients with suspected infection. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33(11):1892–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hawiger J, Veach RA, Zienkiewicz J. New paradigms in sepsis: from prevention to protection of failing microcirculation. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(10):1743–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rudiger A, Singer M. Mechanisms of sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(6):1599–608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiedler U, Augustin HG. Angiopoietins: a link between angiogenesis and inflammation. Trends Immunol. 2006;27(12):552–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ricciuto DR, dos Santos CC, Hawkes M, Toltl LJ, Conroy AL, Rajwans N, et al. Angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 as clinically informative prognostic biomarkers of morbidity and mortality in severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(4):702–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fang Y, Li C, Shao R, Yu H, Zhang Q, Zhao L. Prognostic significance of the angiopoietin-2/angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-1/Tie-2 ratios for early sepsis in an emergency department. Crit Care. 2015;19:367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fang Y, Li C, Shao R, Yu H, Zhang Q. The role of biomarkers of endothelial activation in predicting morbidity and mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in intensive care: A prospective observational study. Thromb Res. 2018;171:149–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guarracino F, Bertini P, Pinsky MR. Cardiovascular determinants of resuscitation from sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Burgdorff AM, Bucher M, Schumann J. Vasoplegia in patients with sepsis and septic shock: pathways and mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(4):1303–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Bloch A, Berger D, Takala J. Understanding circulatory failure in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):2077–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Morelli A, Passariello M. Hemodynamic coherence in sepsis. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2016;30(4):453–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Barrett LK, Singer M, Clapp LH. Vasopressin: mechanisms of action on the vasculature in health and in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):33–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sharawy N, Lehmann C. New directions for sepsis and septic shock research. J Surg Res. 2015;194(2):520–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sharawy N. Vasoplegia in septic shock: do we really fight the right enemy? J Crit Care. 2014;29(1):83–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Levy B, Collin S, Sennoun N, Ducrocq N, Kimmoun A, Asfar P, et al. Vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors in septic shock: from bench to bedside. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(12):2019–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lopez A, Lorente JA, Steingrub J, Bakker J, McLuckie A, Willatts S, et al. Multiple-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88: effect on survival in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(1):21–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rabuel C, Mebazaa A. Septic shock: a heart story since the 1960s. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(6):799–807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sergi C, Shen F, Lim DW, Liu W, Zhang M, Chiu B, et al. Cardiovascular dysfunction in sepsis at the dawn of emerging mediators. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;95:153–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu YC, Yu MM, Shou ST, Chai YF. Sepsis-Induced Cardiomyopathy: mechanisms and Treatments. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dal-Secco D, DalBo S, Lautherbach NE, Gava FN, Celes MR, Benedet PO, et al. Cardiac hyporesponsiveness in severe sepsis is associated with nitric oxide-dependent activation of G protein receptor kinase. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2017;313(1):H149–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sevilla Berrios RA, O’Horo JC, Velagapudi V, Pulido JN. Correlation of left ventricular systolic dysfunction determined by low ejection fraction and 30-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2014;29(4):495–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanfilippo F, Corredor C, Fletcher N, Landesberg G, Benedetto U, Foex P, et al. Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(6):1004–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Vallabhajosyula S, Kumar M, Pandompatam G, Sakhuja A, Kashyap R, Kashani K, et al. Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock: an 8-year historical cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. de Castilho FM, Ribeiro AL, Nobre V, Barros G, de Sousa MR. Heart rate variability as predictor of mortality in sepsis: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. de Castilho FM, Ribeiro AL, da Silva JL, Nobre V, de Sousa MR. Heart rate variability as predictor of mortality in sepsis: A prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0180060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Frencken JF, Donker DW, Spitoni C, Koster-Brouwer ME, Soliman IW, Ong DS, et al. Myocardial Injury in Patients With Sepsis and Its Association With Long-Term Outcome. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(2):e004040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shahreyar M, Fahhoum R, Akinseye O, Bhandari S, Dang G, Khouzam RN. Severe sepsis and cardiac arrhythmias. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(1):6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang HE, Moore JX, Donnelly JP, Levitan EB, Safford MM. Risk of Acute Coronary Heart Disease After Sepsis Hospitalization in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):29–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jafarzadeh SR, Thomas BS, Warren DK, Gill J, Fraser VJ. Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Bacteremia and Sepsis on 5-year Risk of Cardiovascular Events. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(4):495–500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Patel N, Bajaj NS, Doshi R, Gupta A, Kalra R, Singh A, et al. Cardiovascular Events and Hospital Deaths Among Patients With Severe Sepsis. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(9):1406–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ince C. The microcirculation is the motor of sepsis. Crit Care. 2005;9 Suppl 4:S13–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Miranda M, Balarini M, Caixeta D, Bouskela E. Microcirculatory dysfunction in sepsis: pathophysiology, clinical monitoring, and potential therapies. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2016;311(1):H24–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Fink MP. Bench-to-bedside review: cytopathic hypoxia. Crit Care. 2002;6(6):491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Brealey D, Brand M, Hargreaves I, Heales S, Land J, Smolenski R, et al. Association between mitochondrial dysfunction and severity and outcome of septic shock. Lancet. 2002;360(9328):219–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Mikkelsen ME, Miltiades AN, Gaieski DF, Goyal M, Fuchs BD, Shah CV, et al. Serum lactate is associated with mortality in severe sepsis independent of organ failure and shock. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(5):1670–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu Z, Meng Z, Li Y, Zhao J, Wu S, Gou S, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with Sepsis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27(1):51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, Seymour CW, Liu VX, Deutschman CS, et al. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):775–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Londono J, Nino C, Archila A, Valencia M, Cardenas D, Perdomo M, et al. Antibiotics has more impact on mortality than other early goal-directed therapy components in patients with sepsis: an instrumental variable analysis. J Crit Care. 2018;48:191–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Londono J, Nino C, Diaz J, Morales C, Leon J, Bernal E, et al. Association of Clinical Hypoperfusion Variables With Lactate Clearance and Hospital Mortality. Shock. 2018;50(3):286–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, Estenssoro E, Dubin A, Hurtado J, et al. Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical TrialEffect on Septic Shock Mortality of Resuscitation Targeting Peripheral Perfusion vs Serum Lactate LevelsEffect on Septic Shock Mortality of Resuscitation Targeting Peripheral Perfusion vs Serum Lactate Levels. JAMA. 2019;321(7):654–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock— A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2223–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Andrews B, Semler MW, Muchemwa L, Kelly P, Lakhi S, Heimburger DC, et al. Effect of an Early Resuscitation Protocol on In-hospital Mortality Among Adults With Sepsis and Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318(13):1233–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Andrews B, Muchemwa L, Kelly P, Lakhi S, Heimburger DC, Bernard GR. Simplified severe sepsis protocol: a randomized controlled trial of modified early goal-directed therapy in Zambia. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(11):2315–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, Engoru C, Olupot-Olupot P, Akech SO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, Mann EE, McAuley DF, Marshall JC, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):155–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Marik P, Bellomo R. A rational approach to fluid therapy in sepsis. Br J Anaesth. 2015;116(3):339–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Brown RM, Semler MW. Fluid Management in Sepsis. J Intensive Care Med. 2019;34(5):364–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, Madl C, Chochrad D, Aldecoa C, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):779–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Scheeren TW, Bakker J, De Backer D, Annane D, Asfar P, Boerma EC, et al. Current use of vasopressors in septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9(1):20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sacha GL, Lam SW, Duggal A, Torbic H, Bass SN, Welch SC, et al. Predictors of response to fixed-dose vasopressin in adult patients with septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kasugai D, Nishikimi M, Nishida K, Higashi M, Yamamoto T, Numaguchi A, et al. Timing of administration of epinephrine predicts the responsiveness to epinephrine in norepinephrine-refractory septic shock: a retrospective study. J Intensive Care. 2019;7:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Chawla LS, Ostermann M, Forni L, Tidmarsh GF. Broad spectrum vasopressors: a new approach to the initial management of septic shock? Crit Care. 2019;23(1):124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, et al. Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1685–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Fujishima S, Gando S, Daizoh S, Kushimoto S, Ogura H, Mayumi T, et al. Infection site is predictive of outcome in acute lung injury associated with severe sepsis and septic shock. Respirology. 2016;21(5):898–904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Matthay MA, Ware LB, Zimmerman GA. The acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(8):2731–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Park I, Kim M, Choe K, Song E, Seo H, Hwang Y, et al. Neutrophils disturb pulmonary microcirculation in sepsis-induced acute lung injury. Eur Respir J. 2019;53(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Evans CE, Zhao YY. Impact of thrombosis on pulmonary endothelial injury and repair following sepsis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2017;312(4):L441–l51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, et al. Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sheu CC, Gong MN, Zhai R, Chen F, Bajwa EK, Clardy PF, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of sepsis-related vs non-sepsis-related ARDS. Chest. 2010;138(3):559–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zampieri FG, Mazza B. Mechanical Ventilation in Sepsis: A Reappraisal. Shock. 2017;47(1S Suppl 1):41-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Fan E, Brodie D, Slutsky AS. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment. JAMA. 2018;319(7):698–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Tongyoo S, Permpikul C, Mongkolpun W, Vattanavanit V, Udompanturak S, Kocak M, et al. Hydrocortisone treatment in early sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: results of a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Bagshaw SM, Uchino S, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H, Morgera S, Schetz M, et al. Septic acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: clinical characteristics and outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(3):431–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Poukkanen M, Vaara ST, Pettila V, Kaukonen KM, Korhonen AM, Hovilehto S, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe sepsis in Finnish Intensive Care Units. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(7):863–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, Ranieri VM, Reinhart K, Gerlach H, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(2):344–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Bagshaw SM, Lapinsky S, Dial S, Arabi Y, Dodek P, Wood G, et al. Acute kidney injury in septic shock: clinical outcomes and impact of duration of hypotension prior to initiation of antimicrobial therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(5):871–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Uchino S, Kellum JA, Bellomo R, Doig GS, Morimatsu H, Morgera S, et al. Acute Renal Failure in Critically Ill PatientsA Multinational, Multicenter Study. JAMA. 2005;294(7):813–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Lerolle N, Nochy D, Guerot E, Bruneval P, Fagon JY, Diehl JL, et al. Histopathology of septic shock induced acute kidney injury: apoptosis and leukocytic infiltration. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(3):471–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Ma S, Evans RG, Iguchi N, Tare M, Parkington HC, Bellomo R, et al. Sepsis-induced acute kidney injury: A disease of the microcirculation. Microcirculation. 2019;26(2):e12483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Poston JT, Koyner JL. Sepsis associated acute kidney injury. BMJ. 2019;364:k4891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Bellomo R, Kellum JA, Ronco C, Wald R, Martensson J, Maiden M, et al. Acute kidney injury in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(6):816–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Semler MW, Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, Stollings JL, Self WH, Siew ED, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in the Intensive Care Unit. The SALT Randomized Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(10):1362–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Sindi A, Heels-Ansdell D, Thabane L, Fox-Robichaud A, et al. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(5):347–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Self WH, Semler MW, Wanderer JP, Wang L, Byrne DW, Collins SP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Noncritically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):819–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Shaw AD, Raghunathan K, Peyerl FW, Munson SH, Paluszkiewicz SM, Schermer CR. Association between intravenous chloride load during resuscitation and in-hospital mortality among patients with SIRS. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1897–905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, Wang L, Byrne DW, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Levi M, Van Der Poll T. Thrombomodulin in sepsis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79(3):294–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Simmons J, Pittet JF. The coagulopathy of acute sepsis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28(2):227–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. McDonald B, Davis RP, Kim SJ, Tse M, Esmon CT, Kolaczkowska E, et al. Platelets and neutrophil extracellular traps collaborate to promote intravascular coagulation during sepsis in mice. Blood. 2017;129(10):1357–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Aird WC. The hematologic system as a marker of organ dysfunction in sepsis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Elsevier; 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Saito S, Uchino S, Hayakawa M, Yamakawa K, Kudo D, Iizuka Y, et al. Epidemiology of disseminated intravascular coagulation in sepsis and validation of scoring systems. J Crit Care. 2019;50:23–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Sharma B, Sharma M, Majumder M, Steier W, Sangal A, Kalawar M. Thrombocytopenia in septic shock patients—a prospective observational study of incidence, risk factors and correlation with clinical outcome. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(6):874–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Azkárate I, Choperena G, Salas E, Sebastián R, Lara G, Elósegui I, et al. Epidemiology and prognostic factors in severe sepsis/septic shock. Evolution over six years [English Edition] Med Intensiva. 2016;40(1):18–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Burunsuzoglu B, Salturk C, Karakurt Z, Ongel EA, Takir HB, Kargin F, et al. Thrombocytopenia: A Risk Factor of Mortality for Patients with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit. Turk Thorac J. 2016;17(1):7–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Venkata C, Kashyap R, Farmer JC, Afessa B. Thrombocytopenia in adult patients with sepsis: incidence, risk factors, and its association with clinical outcome. J Intensive Care. 2013;1(1):9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Seki Y, Wada H, Kawasugi K, Okamoto K, Uchiyama T, Kushimoto S, et al. A prospective analysis of disseminated intravascular coagulation in patients with infections. Intern Med. 2013;52(17):1893–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Scully M, Levi M. How we manage haemostasis during sepsis. Br J Haematol. 2019;185(2):209–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Vincent J-L, Francois B, Zabolotskikh I, Daga MK, Lascarrou J-B, Kirov MY, et al. Effect of a Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis-Associated Coagulopathy: The SCARLET Randomized Clinical TrialEffect of Thrombomodulin on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis-Associated CoagulopathyEffect of Thrombomodulin on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis-Associated Coagulopathy. JAMA. 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  108. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, et al. Drotrecogin Alfa (Activated) in Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2055–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Jaimes F, De La Rosa G, Morales C, Fortich F, Arango C, Aguirre D, et al. Unfractioned heparin for treatment of sepsis: A randomized clinical trial (The HETRASE Study). Crit Care Med. 2009;37(4):1185–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Su GL. Lipopolysaccharides in liver injury: molecular mechanisms of Kupffer cell activation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2002;283(2):G256–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Yan J, Li S, Li S. The role of the liver in sepsis. Int Rev Immunol. 2014;33(6):498–510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Strnad P, Tacke F, Koch A, Trautwein C. Liver - guardian, modifier and target of sepsis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(1):55–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Brun-Buisson C, Meshaka P, Pinton P, Vallet B. EPISEPSIS: a reappraisal of the epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(4):580–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Vincent JL, Angus DC, Artigas A, Kalil A, Basson BR, Jamal HH, et al. Effects of drotrecogin alfa (activated) on organ dysfunction in the PROWESS trial. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3):834–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Waseem N, Chen PH. Hypoxic Hepatitis: A Review and Clinical Update. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2016;4(3):263–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Nesseler N, Launey Y, Aninat C, Morel F, Malledant Y, Seguin P. Clinical review: the liver in sepsis. Crit Care. 2012;16(5):235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Van den Broecke A, Van Coile L, Decruyenaere A, Colpaert K, Benoit D, Van Vlierberghe H, et al. Epidemiology, causes, evolution and outcome in a single-center cohort of 1116 critically ill patients with hypoxic hepatitis. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Jenniskens M, Langouche L, Vanwijngaerden YM, Mesotten D, Van den Berghe G. Cholestatic liver (dys)function during sepsis and other critical illnesses. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(1):16–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Spirli C, Fabris L, Duner E, Fiorotto R, Ballardini G, Roskams T, et al. Cytokine-stimulated nitric oxide production inhibits adenylyl cyclase and cAMP-dependent secretion in cholangiocytes. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(3):737–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Spirli C, Nathanson MH, Fiorotto R, Duner E, Denson LA, Sanz JM, et al. Proinflammatory cytokines inhibit secretion in rat bile duct epithelium. Gastroenterology. 2001;121(1):156–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Gofton TE, Young GB. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012;8(10):557–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Sharshar T, Annane D, de la Grandmaison GL, Brouland JP, Hopkinson NS, Francoise G. The neuropathology of septic shock. Brain Pathol. 2004;14(1):21–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Walkey AJ, Hammill BG, Curtis LH, Benjamin EJ. Long-term outcomes following development of new-onset atrial fibrillation during sepsis. Chest. 2014;146(5):1187–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Boehme AK, Ranawat P, Luna J, Kamel H, Elkind MS. Risk of Acute Stroke After Hospitalization for Sepsis. Stroke. 2017;48(3):574–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Shao IY, Elkind MS, Boehme AK. Risk Factors for Stroke in Patients With Sepsis and Bloodstream Infections. Stroke. 2019;50(5):1046–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Polito A, Eischwald F, Maho AL, Polito A, Azabou E, Annane D, et al. Pattern of brain injury in the acute setting of human septic shock. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Sweis R, Ortiz J, Biller J. Neurology of Sepsis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2016;16(3):21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Siami S, Annane D, Sharshar T. The encephalopathy in sepsis [viii.] Crit Care Clin. 2008;24(1):67–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Annane D, Sharshar T. Cognitive decline after sepsis. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(1):61–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. van Gool WA, van de Beek D, Eikelenboom P. Systemic infection and delirium: when cytokines and acetylcholine collide. Lancet. 2010;375(9716):773–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Sharshar T, Gray F, Lorin de la Grandmaison G, Hopkinson NS, Ross E, Dorandeu A, et al. Apoptosis of neurons in cardiovascular autonomic centres triggered by inducible nitric oxide synthase after death from septic shock. Lancet. 2003;362(9398):1799–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. de Grooth HJ, Geenen IL, Girbes AR, Vincent JL, Parienti JJ, Oudemans-van Straaten HM. SOFA and mortality endpoints in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, McGloughlin S, MacIsaac C, Bellomo R, et al. 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(3):290–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Minne L, Abu-Hanna A, de Jonge E. Evaluation of SOFA-based models for predicting mortality in the ICU: A systematic review. Crit Care. 2008;12(6):R161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R, Vattanavanit V. Comparison of the accuracy of three early warning scores with SOFA score for predicting mortality in adult sepsis and septic shock patients admitted to intensive care unit. Heart Lung. 2019;48(3):240–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, Rea TD, Scherag A, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)Assessment of Clinical Criteria for SepsisAssessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis. JAMA. 2016;315(8):762–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Yadav H, Harrison AM, Hanson AC, Gajic O, Kor DJ, Cartin-Ceba R. Improving the Accuracy of Cardiovascular Component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(7):1449–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(1):3–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L. Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Meredith P, Schmidt PE, Featherstone PI. The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):465–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Goulden R, Hoyle MC, Monis J, Railton D, Riley V, Martin P, et al. qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS for predicting inhospital mortality and ICU admission in emergency admissions treated as sepsis. Emerg Med J. 2018;35(6):345–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, Sokol S, Pettit N, Howell MD, et al. Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and Early Warning Scores for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Infected Patients outside the Intensive Care Unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):906–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, Chang CH, Elliott CF, Xu Z, et al. Derivation, Validation, and Potential Treatment Implications of Novel Clinical Phenotypes for Sepsis. JAMA. 2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Delahanty RJ, Alvarez J, Flynn LM, Sherwin RL, Jones SS. Development and Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model for the Early Identification of Patients at Risk for Sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;73(4):334–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Jawad I, Luksic I, Rafnsson SB. Assessing available information on the burden of sepsis: global estimates of incidence, prevalence and mortality. J Glob Health. 2012;2(1):010404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Rudd KE, Kissoon N, Limmathurotsakul D, Bory S, Mutahunga B, Seymour CW, et al. The global burden of sepsis: barriers and potential solutions. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Instituto Latinoamericano de Sepsis and Global Sepsis Alliance São Paulo Declaration [internet]. Cited 2019 May 17 Available from: https://ilas.org.br/see-declaration.php
  149. African Sepsis Alliance Kampala Declaration 2017. [internet]. Cited 2019 May 17 Available from: https://www.africansepsisalliance.org/kampaladeclaration

Articles from The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine are provided here courtesy of Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine

RESOURCES