Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb 1;52(2):268-296.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006135. Epub 2024 Jan 19.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

Affiliations

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

Daniel De Backer et al. Crit Care Med. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. De Backer, Pontes Azevedo, and Tissieres received funding from Baxter. Dr. De Backer received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Phillips, and Viatris Pharmazz. Dr. Deutschman received funding from Elsevier, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics (Tarrytown, NY), Enliven (Jerusalem, Israel), The Society of Critical Care Medicine, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and La Jolla Pharmaceuticals; he received support for article research form the National Institutes of Health (NIH); he received Giapreza (angiotensin II infusion) for experimental use from La Jolla Pharmaceuticals (La Jolla, CA); and he received honorarium for serving as Scientific Editor of the journal Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Ostermann received research funding from Baxter, Fresenius Medical, bioMerieux, and La Jolla Pharma. Dr. Talmor received funding from NIH, Clew Medical, Mindray, and STIMIT. Dr. Prescott’s institution received funding from the NIH, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Agency for Healthcare and Research and Quality, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan; she disclosed government work. Dr. Antonelli received funding from General Electrics, Fisher & Paykel, Menarini, and Pfizer. Dr. Pontes Azevedo received funding from Merck Sharp Dohme (MSD) and Nestle. Dr. Loeches received funding from ThermoFisher, Polyphor, MSD, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Clinigen, Biotest, Accelerate, and bioMérieux. Dr. Tissieres received funding from Sanofi, bioMerieux, Abionic, Sedana, and ThermoFisher. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al.: The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016; 315:801–810
    1. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al.: Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: Analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020; 395:200–211
    1. Fleischmann-Struzek C, Mellhammar L, Rose N, et al.: Incidence and mortality of hospital- and ICU-treated sepsis: Results from an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46:1552–1562
    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al.: Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021; 47:1181–1247
    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al.: Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021; 49:e1063–e1143

Grants and funding