SCCM Issues New Criteria for Sepsis, Septic Shock Definition
You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.
 

 

CME / CE

SCCM Issues New Criteria for Sepsis, Septic Shock Definition

  • Authors: News Author: Fran Lowry
    CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
  • CME / CE Released: 3/17/2016
  • THIS ACTIVITY HAS EXPIRED FOR CREDIT
  • Valid for credit through: 3/17/2017, 11:59 PM EST


Target Audience and Goal Statement

This article is intended for critical care specialists, emergency medicine specialists, infectious disease specialists, neurologists, cardiologists, nurses, pharmacists, public health officials, and other members of the healthcare team involved in the care of persons with sepsis.

The goal of this activity is to provide medical news to primary care clinicians and other healthcare professionals in order to enhance patient care.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe updated, evidence-based definitions for sepsis issued by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM)
  2. Identify updated, evidence-based definitions for septic shock issued by the SCCM and the ESICM


Disclosures

As an organization accredited by the ACCME, Medscape, LLC, requires everyone who is in a position to control the content of an education activity to disclose all relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest. The ACCME defines "relevant financial relationships" as financial relationships in any amount, occurring within the past 12 months, including financial relationships of a spouse or life partner, that could create a conflict of interest.

Medscape, LLC, encourages Authors to identify investigational products or off-label uses of products regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, at first mention and where appropriate in the content.


Author(s)

  • Fran Lowry

    Freelance writer, Medscape

    Disclosures

    Disclosure: Fran Lowry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Editor(s)

  • Robert Morris, PharmD

    Associate CME Clinical Director, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Disclosure: Robert Morris, PharmD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CME Reviewer/Nurse Planner

  • Amy Bernard, MS, BSN, RN-BC

    Lead Nurse Planner, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Disclosure: Amy Bernard, MS, BSN, RN-BC, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CME Author(s)

  • Laurie Barclay, MD

    Freelance writer and reviewer, Medscape, LLC

    Disclosures

    Disclosure: Laurie Barclay, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
    Owns stock, stock options, or bonds from: Pfizer


Accreditation Statements

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

    Medscape, LLC designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    This Enduring Material activity, Medscape Education Clinical Briefs, has been reviewed and is acceptable for up to 65.00 Prescribed credit(s) by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Term of approval begins 09/01/2015. Term of approval is for one year from this date. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

    Medscape, LLC staff have disclosed that they have no relevant financial relationships.

    AAFP Accreditation Questions

    Contact This Provider

    For Nurses

  • Medscape, LLC is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.

    Awarded 0.25 contact hour(s) of continuing nursing education for RNs and APNs; none of these credits is in the area of pharmacology.

    Contact This Provider

    For Pharmacists

  • Medscape, LLC is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education.

    Medscape designates this continuing education activity for 0.25 contact hour(s) (0.025 CEUs) (Universal Activity Number 0461-0000-16-055-H01-P).

    Contact This Provider

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]


Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page. To receive AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™, you must receive a minimum score of 70% on the post-test.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or printed out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. We encourage you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.

You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 6 years; at any point within this time period you can print out the tally as well as the certificates from the CME/CE Tracker.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.

CME / CE

SCCM Issues New Criteria for Sepsis, Septic Shock Definition

Authors: News Author: Fran Lowry CME Author: Laurie Barclay, MDFaculty and Disclosures
THIS ACTIVITY HAS EXPIRED FOR CREDIT

CME / CE Released: 3/17/2016

Valid for credit through: 3/17/2017, 11:59 PM EST

processing....

Clinical Context

Sepsis is a major public health concern. It accounts for more than $20 billion (5.2%) of total US hospital costs in 2011, with long-term physical, psychological, and cognitive disabilities creating major healthcare and social burdens. The incidence of sepsis is increasing, in part because of aging populations with more comorbid conditions, as well as greater recognition.

Since 2001, when definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised, there has been significant progress in the underlying pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) convened a task force of 19 experts in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology to assess and update definitions for sepsis and septic shock.

Study Synopsis and Perspective

The definitions of sepsis and septic shock have been updated by an international task force for the first time in 15 years. New criteria for septic shock have been added, and standards for the rapid recognition of sepsis-related organ failure have been simplified.

"There are more than 2 million hospitalizations for sepsis in the United States each year, and it accounts for about 5% of the healthcare budget. It's an enormous public health burden," said Christopher W. Seymour, MD, MSc, from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who is a member of the Third International Consensus Definitions Task Force.

"Our care in sepsis is focused on prompt recognition and early treatment. We hope that the new criteria and definitions will be used by clinicians to find patients faster and get treatment started right away," Dr Seymour told Medscape Medical News.

The new definitions were presented here at the SCCM's 45th Critical Care Congress and were published in the February 23 issue of JAMA.[1]

Quick Identification Key to Saving Lives

In the new criteria, the quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is used to assess just 3 symptoms in patients with suspected sepsis: altered mental status, fast respiratory rate, and low blood pressure. Blood tests are not required.

"If patients with infection show two of the three criteria, they should be considered likely to be septic," said Dr Seymour, who led team that developed the score.[2]

He and his group analyzed more than 800,000 encounters recorded in electronic health records at 177 hospitals around the world, including academic, community, public, private, and federal hospitals.

"This is one of the largest collaborative studies ever conducted in the field of critical care medicine. It is also one of the first studies of electronic health records in our field. We focused primarily on patients in the intensive care unit [ICU] who were receiving antibiotics and fluid cultures, as those were the patients who were thought to be infected," he explained.

The team analyzed 148,907 patients with suspected infection, and evaluated how well the existing and the new criteria predicted sepsis mortality in these patients.

Organ Failure Check Best in the ICU, Quick Score Better Elsewhere

In the old criteria for sepsis, the systemic inflammatory response syndrome score was a measure of respiratory rate, white blood cell count, heart rate, and fever.

The SOFA score and the logistic organ dysfunction system score are criteria that are more recent.

Dr Seymour and his colleagues looked at how well these existing scores for inflammation and organ dysfunction predicted mortality compared with the quick score.

"The quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment score has a range from 0 to 3, with 1 point each for systolic hypotension of 100 mm Hg or below, tachypnea of at least 22 breaths/min, and altered mental state," Dr Seymour reported.

His team used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to assess the predictive validity of the different scores. The quick score was a better predictor of hospital mortality for patients with suspected infection who were not in the ICU than for those in the ICU.

Table. Predictive Validity for Death

Criteria AUROC 95% Confidence Interval
ICU patients    
   Systemic inflammatory response syndrome 0.64 0.62-0.66
   Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment 0.66 0.64-0.66
   Sequential organ failure assessment 0.74 0.73-0.76
   Logistic organ dysfunction system 0.75 0.73-0.76
Non-ICU patients    
   Systemic inflammatory response syndrome 0.76 0.75-0.77
   Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment 0.81 0.80-0.82
   Sequential organ failure assessment 0.79 0.78-0.80
AUROC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; ICU = intensive care unit.

"The sequential organ failure assessment score found patients more likely to be septic both in and out of the ICU. But it involves the use of many lab tests and is a bit complex," Dr Seymour explained. For patients not in the ICU, the performance of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment score was similar to that of the sequential organ failure assessment score, he added.

"This is what was recommended by the task force as the new criteria for sepsis: infection plus two or more sequential organ failure assessment points, and the use of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment score as a prompt to identify patients likely to be septic early on," he said.

Redefining Septic Shock

Dr Seymour was also part of the team that developed the new criteria for assessing septic shock.[3]

"For a decade, clinicians and researchers have classified patients with shock in very different ways -- one group may find that among patients with shock, only one in five die, whereas other groups may find that four of five die -- so there is wide variability. The task force wanted to bring some clarity to how we define shock," he said.

"The new definition for septic shock is the administration of vasopressors or vasoactive medication to maintain mean arterial blood pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher after adequate fluid resuscitation, with the presence of a high lactate (more than 2 mmol/L). It is a new criterion that shock requires a high lactate. This is in particular to identify a very sick group," Dr Seymour said.

New Criteria More Effective in Recognizing Sepsis

"We now have a scientifically based classification that will give the clinician at the bedside new and more effective ways to recognize the septic patient and the severely septic patient so as to afford the earliest possible intervention," said Timothy Buchman, MD, from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who is past president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and editor-in-chief of Critical Care Medicine.

"We expect that, as a result of these definitions, we will have the right population recognized, we will be able to apply a suite of proven interventions and, by providing the right care, right now, and doing that every time, we will see significant improvements in the recovery from this very lethal state," Dr Buchman told Medscape Medical News.

These studies were funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Permanente Medical Group, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the ESICM, and the SCCM. Dr Seymour discloses receiving personal fees from Beckman Coulter. Dr Buchman is the editor-in-chief of Critical Care Medicine, the official journal of the SCCM.

Society of Critical Care Medicine's (SCCM) 45th Critical Care Congress. Presented February 22, 2016.

Study Highlights

  • The Sepsis Definitions Task Force reviewed available evidence and generated definitions and clinical criteria through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting.
  • The task force circulated its recommendations to 31 international professional societies for peer review and endorsement.
  • Earlier definitions were limited by excessive focus on inflammation, the inaccurate concept that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and insufficient specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.
  • Discrepancies in reported incidence and mortality for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction result from current use of multiple definitions and terminologies.
  • The task force concluded that the term severe sepsis was redundant.
  • The task force defined sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.
  • The clinical criterion for organ dysfunction is an increase in the SOFA score of 2 or more points, which has an associated in-hospital mortality exceeding 10%.
  • The task force defined septic shock as a subset of sepsis with greater mortality risk than with sepsis alone because of particularly severe circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities.
  • Clinical criteria for septic shock are the need for a vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and a serum lactate level of more than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia.
  • The combination of these 2 criteria predicts hospital mortality rates exceeding 40%.
  • The task force defined a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA).
  • Adult patients with suspected infection in out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings are more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have more than 2 qSOFA clinical criteria: respiratory rate of 22 breaths per minute or higher, altered mental status, and/or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less.
  • These definitions were compared with earlier versions and were validated in 148,907 patients with suspected infection.
  • Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that qSOFA was a better predictor of hospital mortality for patients with suspected infection who were not in the ICU than for those in the ICU.
  • The task force recommended that its updated definitions and clinical criteria replace earlier definitions.
  • The task force concluded that these updated definitions will increase consistency across epidemiologic studies and clinical trials and will allow earlier diagnosis and intervention for patients with sepsis or at risk for the development of sepsis.
  • Limitations of these definitions and criteria include the lack of a gold standard.

Clinical Implications

  • The updated SCCM/ESICM definition of sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.
  • The updated SCCM/ESICM definition of septic shock is a subset of sepsis with greater mortality risk than with sepsis alone because of particularly severe circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities.
  • Implications for the Healthcare Team: Members of the healthcare team should be aware that these updated definitions should improve consistency across epidemiologic studies and clinical trials and allow earlier diagnosis and intervention for patients with sepsis or at risk for the development of sepsis.

CME Test

  • Print