Getting a consensus: advantages and disadvantages of Sepsis 3 in the context of middle-income settings - Critical Care Science (CCS)

Commentaries

Getting a consensus: advantages and disadvantages of Sepsis 3 in the context of middle-income settings

What is new on the Sepsis 3 definitions?

Recently the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Critical Care Medicine (ESICM) promoted a new consensus conference and published the new sepsis definitions, known as Sepsis 3.()

Briefly, the broad definition of sepsis is now “a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection”.() The clinical diagnosis of organ dysfunction is based on a variation of 2 or more points in the Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Assessment Score (SOFA). The presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria is no longer required for the definition. One of the main messages is that all sepsis should be considered as a severe disease so the term “severe sepsis” was abolished. Septic shock is defined as “a subset of sepsis with particularly profound circulatory, cellular and metabolic abnormalities associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone”. The diagnostic criteria of septic shock are “vasopressor requirement required to maintain a mean arterial pressure of > 65mmHg and a serum lactate level > 2mmol/L in the absence of hypovolemia”.()

[…]

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leia também