Sepsis and Septic Shock — Part 5: Special Populations, Quality Metrics & Long-Term Outcomes
Sepsis management in immunocompromised patients, elderly, and pregnancy; bundle compliance and quality metrics; post-sepsis syndrome; long-term outcomes and performance improvement.
1. Sepsis in the Immunocompromised Patient
1.1 Overview
Immunocompromised patients represent a distinct and challenging subset of sepsis management. These patients have an altered spectrum of potential pathogens, may present with atypical signs and symptoms, and frequently have higher mortality rates.1 2
Categories of immunocompromised patients:
| Category | Examples | Key Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Neutropenia | Chemotherapy-induced, hematologic malignancy, aplastic anemia | Absent or blunted inflammatory response; high risk for gram-negative bacteremia and invasive fungal infections |
| Solid organ transplant | Kidney, liver, heart, lung transplant recipients | Risk profile varies by time since transplant; consider opportunistic infections (CMV, PJP, Aspergillus) |
| Hematopoietic stem cell transplant | Allogeneic or autologous HSCT | Profound immunosuppression; risk for encapsulated bacteria, viruses, and fungi |
| HIV/AIDS | CD4 < 200 cells/μL | Opportunistic infections (PJP, toxoplasmosis, MAC, cryptococcosis, CMV); consider immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) |
| Chronic immunosuppressive therapy | Corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, biologics (anti-TNF, rituximab, JAK inhibitors) | Drug-specific infection risks; may mask fever and inflammatory markers |
| Asplenia | Surgical or functional (sickle cell disease) | Overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI) with encapsulated organisms (S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae) |
| Primary immunodeficiency | Hypogammaglobulinemia, complement deficiency, CGD | Recurrent infections with specific organism patterns |
1.2 Modified Empiric Antimicrobial Approach
Neutropenic Sepsis (ANC < 500 cells/μL)
| Risk Level | Empiric Regimen | Additional Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Standard empiric | Cefepime 2 g IV q8h OR Meropenem 1 g IV q8h OR Piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q6h | Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam monotherapy is standard first-line |
| MRSA risk | Add Vancomycin 15–20 mg/kg IV q8–12h | Mucosal disruption, catheter infection, skin/soft tissue infection, prior MRSA |
| Persistent fever > 4–7 days on antibiotics | Add empiric antifungal therapy: Micafungin 100 mg IV q24h or Liposomal amphotericin B 3 mg/kg IV q24h | Especially in prolonged (> 7 days) profound neutropenia |
| Septic shock in neutropenic patient | Broad combination: Meropenem + Vancomycin + Micafungin | Cover all potential pathogens; consider addition of aminoglycoside for synergy |
Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
| Time Post-Transplant | Common Organisms | Empiric Approach |
|---|---|---|
| < 1 month | Nosocomial bacteria (MRSA, gram-negatives, Candida); donor-derived infections | Standard sepsis empirics + anti-fungal if risk factors |
| 1–6 months | Opportunistic infections: CMV, PJP, Aspergillus, Nocardia, Listeria; community bacteria | Broad-spectrum antibiotics + consider TMP-SMX (PJP), ganciclovir (CMV), voriconazole (Aspergillus) based on clinical picture |
| > 6 months | Community-acquired organisms predominate; late opportunistic infections in heavily immunosuppressed | Standard sepsis empirics; evaluate for late CMV, BK virus, community respiratory viruses |
HIV/AIDS (CD4 < 200 cells/μL)
| CD4 Count | Additional Pathogens to Consider | Empiric Additions |
|---|---|---|
| < 200 | PJP, toxoplasmosis, Cryptococcus, Histoplasma | TMP-SMX (PJP); consider empiric treatment based on presentation |
| < 100 | MAC, CMV (retinitis, colitis), disseminated fungal infections | Targeted evaluation and treatment |
| < 50 | All of the above at highest risk | Aggressive diagnostic workup including bronchoscopy, lumbar puncture, serum cryptococcal antigen, fungal blood cultures |
1.3 Special Diagnostic Considerations
- Inflammatory markers (CRP, procalcitonin, WBC) may be blunted or absent in neutropenic and immunosuppressed patients — maintain a high index of suspicion even with normal values
- Imaging should be pursued aggressively — CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis are often required for source identification when the clinical exam is unrevealing
- Cultures should be expanded: fungal blood cultures, mycobacterial cultures, viral PCR panels (CMV, EBV, adenovirus, respiratory viruses), beta-D-glucan, galactomannan, cryptococcal antigen
- Bronchoscopy with BAL should be considered early in immunocompromised patients with pulmonary infiltrates and sepsis of unclear etiology
2. Sepsis in the Elderly
2.1 Epidemiology and Unique Challenges
Patients aged ≥ 65 years account for approximately 60–65% of all sepsis cases and have disproportionately higher mortality (approximately 2–3 times higher than younger adults).3
Age-related factors affecting sepsis presentation and outcomes:
| Factor | Clinical Impact |
|---|---|
| Immunosenescence | Impaired innate and adaptive immune responses; attenuated cytokine responses; reduced vaccine efficacy |
| Comorbid burden | Higher prevalence of heart failure, CKD, COPD, diabetes, malignancy — each independently increases mortality |
| Atypical presentation | May present with altered mental status, functional decline, or falls rather than fever and tachycardia; hypothermia is more common and is an ominous sign |
| Reduced physiologic reserve | Less ability to compensate for hemodynamic stress; higher risk of organ failure |
| Polypharmacy | Drug interactions; medications may mask sepsis signs (beta-blockers suppress tachycardia; NSAIDs suppress fever; immunosuppressants blunt immune response) |
| Baseline organ dysfunction | Pre-existing renal insufficiency, hepatic dysfunction, or anemia complicate assessment of acute organ dysfunction (SOFA score) |
| Frailty | Frailty index correlates with ICU mortality independently of illness severity scores |
2.2 Modified Management Considerations
| Domain | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Fluid resuscitation | Exercise caution with 30 mL/kg bolus — many elderly patients have reduced cardiac compliance and are at higher risk for pulmonary edema; use dynamic fluid responsiveness assessment early |
| MAP target | Consider permissive hypotension (MAP 60–65 mmHg) per the 65 trial in patients ≥ 65 years without evidence of end-organ hypoperfusion4 |
| Vasopressors | Standard approach; be aware that baseline hypertension is common and autoregulatory thresholds may be higher in chronically hypertensive patients |
| Renal dosing | Adjust antimicrobial dosing for age-related decline in renal function (may not be reflected by creatinine alone — use estimated GFR or creatinine clearance) |
| Goals of care | Early and proactive goals-of-care discussions are essential; advance directive review; involve palliative care when appropriate |
| ICU-acquired weakness | Higher risk; prioritize early mobilization and physical therapy; minimize sedation and neuromuscular blockade |
| Delirium | Extremely common in elderly sepsis patients (40–70%); use validated screening tools (CAM-ICU); non-pharmacologic prevention strategies |
2.3 Prognostication in Elderly Sepsis
- Age alone should NOT be used to deny ICU admission or aggressive treatment — functional status and premorbid quality of life are more relevant than chronological age
- Frailty assessment (Clinical Frailty Scale) is a better predictor of ICU outcomes than age or severity scores
- Short-term survivors often experience significant functional decline — only 30–40% of elderly sepsis survivors return to their pre-illness functional baseline within 1 year3
3. Sepsis in Pregnancy
3.1 Overview
Maternal sepsis is a leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Sepsis in pregnancy requires recognition of altered physiology, a modified differential diagnosis, and close collaboration between obstetric and critical care teams.5
3.2 Physiologic Changes Affecting Sepsis Recognition
| Parameter | Normal Pregnancy Change | Impact on Sepsis Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Heart rate | Increases by 10–20 bpm | Tachycardia threshold may need adjustment; resting HR of 90–100 may be normal |
| Blood pressure | Decreases by 5–10 mmHg (nadir in second trimester) | Hypotension may be missed if using standard thresholds; MAP normally lower |
| Respiratory rate | Slight increase (12–20 normal) | May be slightly elevated at baseline |
| White blood cell count | Increases up to 12,000–15,000/μL (up to 25,000 in labor) | Leukocytosis is physiologic; cannot rely on WBC elevation alone |
| Cardiac output | Increases 30–50% | Higher baseline cardiac output masks early shock |
| Creatinine | Decreases (normal pregnancy Cr: 0.4–0.8 mg/dL) | A creatinine of 1.0 mg/dL may represent significant renal dysfunction |
| Lactate | Mildly elevated during labor | Interpret cautiously during active labor |
3.3 Common Sources of Sepsis in Pregnancy
| Source | Examples | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Genitourinary | Pyelonephritis, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, septic abortion | Any trimester; endometritis postpartum |
| Respiratory | Community-acquired pneumonia, influenza, COVID-19 | Any trimester; influenza risk higher in third trimester |
| Surgical / procedural | Post-cesarean wound infection, episiotomy infection | Postpartum |
| Invasive Group A Streptococcus | Puerperal sepsis; necrotizing fasciitis | Peripartum / postpartum |
| Breast | Mastitis → abscess | Postpartum / lactation |
3.4 Management Modifications in Pregnancy
| Domain | Modification |
|---|---|
| Antimicrobials | Avoid tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones if possible; beta-lactams, carbapenems, vancomycin, and azithromycin are generally safe; metronidazole safe in 2nd/3rd trimester |
| Fluid resuscitation | Standard approach with attention to avoiding fluid overload (increased risk of pulmonary edema due to decreased oncotic pressure and increased vascular permeability) |
| Vasopressors | Norepinephrine is first-line (minimal uterine vasoconstriction compared to other agents); phenylephrine is commonly used in obstetric anesthesia; avoid dopamine (limited data) |
| Imaging | CT with contrast is acceptable when clinically indicated — do not withhold necessary imaging due to radiation concerns; MRI without gadolinium is preferred when feasible |
| Source control | Delivery may be necessary for source control in chorioamnionitis or septic abortion; evacuate retained products of conception |
| Fetal monitoring | Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring when viable gestational age; fetal tachycardia is often the earliest sign of maternal sepsis |
| Corticosteroids | If indicated for septic shock, standard hydrocortisone dosing is used; note that betamethasone/dexamethasone for fetal lung maturity has different indications and is not a substitute |
| VTE prophylaxis | Essential — pregnancy is a hypercoagulable state; LMWH preferred |
| Positioning | Left lateral tilt (15–30°) to relieve aortocaval compression after 20 weeks’ gestation |
3.5 Obstetric Sepsis Warning Signs (Modified Obstetric Early Warning Scores)
| Parameter | Trigger for Urgent Review |
|---|---|
| Temperature | > 38.0 °C or < 36.0 °C |
| Heart rate | > 120 bpm or < 50 bpm |
| Respiratory rate | > 25 or < 10 breaths/min |
| Systolic BP | < 90 mmHg or > 160 mmHg |
| SpO2 | < 95% |
| Consciousness | New confusion, agitation, or unresponsiveness |
| Urine output | < 0.5 mL/kg/hr for > 2 hours |
| Lochia / wound | Purulent, malodorous, or abnormal |
4. Quality Metrics and Bundle Compliance
4.1 Sepsis Quality Measures
CMS SEP-1 Core Measure
The national quality measure for severe sepsis and septic shock (SEP-1) has been a key driver of institutional sepsis performance improvement since its introduction in 2015. While controversial, compliance with the measure has been associated with improved outcomes in observational studies.6
Current SEP-1 performance (national benchmarks):
| Metric | Approximate National Performance |
|---|---|
| Overall SEP-1 compliance | 55–65% |
| Blood cultures before antibiotics | 85–92% |
| Broad-spectrum antibiotics within 3 hours (severe sepsis) | 75–85% |
| 30 mL/kg crystalloid for septic shock | 60–75% |
| Vasopressor initiation for persistent hypotension | 70–80% |
| Repeat lactate (if initial > 2.0) | 65–80% |
| Reassessment of volume status | 50–65% |
4.2 International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle Compliance
The international sepsis guidelines track compliance with the hour-1 bundle across participating hospitals worldwide.7
Association between bundle compliance and mortality:
| Bundle Compliance | Approximate Mortality |
|---|---|
| All elements completed | 25–30% |
| Partial compliance | 30–40% |
| No elements completed | 40–50% |
Key findings from the surviving sepsis performance improvement database:
- Each additional bundle element completed is associated with an approximately 4% relative reduction in mortality
- Complete bundle compliance is the single strongest modifiable predictor of survival
- The most frequently missed elements are: reassessment of volume status, repeat lactate measurement, and timely vasopressor initiation
4.3 Institutional Performance Improvement Programs
Recommendation: For hospitals and health systems, the panel recommends a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for sepsis management.
Strength: Best practice statement1
Essential components of a sepsis performance improvement program:
| Component | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Sepsis screening | Standardized nurse-driven screening at triage (ED) and during routine vital sign assessment (inpatient); electronic sepsis alert in EHR |
| Sepsis order sets | Standardized order sets activated by screening positive; include lactate, blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotics, fluid bolus, vasopressor protocol |
| Sepsis response team / code sepsis | Rapid response mechanism for patients meeting sepsis criteria; time-stamped documentation |
| Education and training | Regular sepsis education for nursing, physicians, advanced practice providers, and ancillary staff; simulation-based training |
| Data collection and feedback | Monthly bundle compliance monitoring; mortality tracking; benchmarking against national data; regular case review |
| Sepsis coordinator | Dedicated clinician or nurse to lead performance improvement, chart review, and data reporting |
| Antimicrobial stewardship integration | Ensure de-escalation and duration-of-therapy audits are part of the sepsis program |
4.4 Common Barriers to Bundle Compliance
| Barrier | Strategy to Address |
|---|---|
| Delayed sepsis recognition | Improve screening sensitivity; nursing education; lower threshold for clinical suspicion |
| Blood cultures before antibiotics | Pre-stocked culture supplies in resuscitation areas; allow peripheral cultures in emergencies |
| Antibiotic delays (pharmacy preparation, formulary issues) | Pre-mixed antibiotics available in ED; override capability; standardized regimens |
| 30 mL/kg fluid reluctance (HF, ESRD patients) | Educate on individualized fluid targets; document clinical rationale for deviation |
| Documentation gaps | Standardized documentation templates; real-time prompting in EHR |
| Physician resistance to protocolized care | Engage physician champions; share outcome data; frame as minimum standards with clinical flexibility |
5. Post-Sepsis Syndrome and Long-Term Outcomes
5.1 Epidemiology
Sepsis survivors face significant morbidity and mortality that extends well beyond the acute hospitalization. Approximately 40–50% of sepsis survivors experience new cognitive, psychological, or physical impairments collectively termed “post-sepsis syndrome.”8 9
Long-term mortality:
- 1-year mortality after sepsis hospitalization: 25–40% (compared with ~15% for age-matched hospitalized patients without sepsis)
- 5-year mortality: Up to 50–75% in elderly sepsis survivors
- Many late deaths are attributable to underlying comorbidities, recurrent infections, and accelerated organ dysfunction
5.2 Components of Post-Sepsis Syndrome
| Domain | Manifestations | Prevalence | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive | Memory impairment, executive dysfunction, decreased processing speed, attention deficits, new-onset dementia | 30–50% of survivors | Months to years; some permanent |
| Psychological | Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances | 25–40% of survivors | Months to years |
| Physical | ICU-acquired weakness, functional decline, fatigue, chronic pain, falls, reduced exercise tolerance | 25–50% of survivors | Months to years; often incompletely resolved |
| Recurrent infections | Increased susceptibility to new infections (especially pneumonia, UTI) due to post-sepsis immunosuppression | 10–20% rehospitalized for infection within 90 days | First 6–12 months |
| Organ dysfunction | New or worsened CKD, cardiovascular events (MI, stroke, HF), accelerated cognitive decline | 10–40% depending on organ system | Persistent |
| Social / functional | Loss of independence, inability to return to work, caregiver burden, financial toxicity | 30–50% of previously independent survivors | Months to years |
5.3 Sepsis-Induced Immunosuppression
Following the initial hyperinflammatory phase, many sepsis survivors enter a period of immune paralysis or immunosuppression characterized by:10
- Lymphocyte apoptosis and T-cell exhaustion
- Expansion of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells
- Monocyte deactivation (reduced HLA-DR expression)
- Impaired phagocytosis and antigen presentation
- Increased susceptibility to secondary and nosocomial infections
This post-sepsis immunosuppression is a major driver of late mortality and recurrent infections.
5.4 Post-ICU / Post-Sepsis Follow-Up
Recommendation: The panel suggests that sepsis survivors be evaluated for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge.
Strength: Best practice statement1
Recommended follow-up approach:
| Timepoint | Assessment | Interventions |
|---|---|---|
| At hospital discharge | Functional status assessment; medication reconciliation; primary care and specialist follow-up arranged; patient and family education about post-sepsis syndrome | Rehabilitation referral (PT/OT) if functional decline; discharge planning |
| 1–2 weeks post-discharge | Primary care visit; medication review; wound assessment; review of pending culture results | Adjust medications; address barriers to recovery |
| 1 month | Screen for PTSD, depression, anxiety (PHQ-9, GAD-7, PCL-5); assess functional recovery; review readmission risk | Mental health referral if indicated; ongoing rehabilitation |
| 3 months | Cognitive screening (MoCA); ongoing psychological assessment; functional status; assess for recurrent infections | Neuropsychological testing if cognitive concerns persist; continued rehabilitation |
| 6–12 months | Comprehensive reassessment; organ function monitoring (renal, cardiac); reassess cognition; quality of life assessment | Long-term rehabilitation planning; vocational rehabilitation if needed |
5.5 Preventing Readmission and Recurrent Sepsis
| Strategy | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Vaccination | Ensure pneumococcal, influenza, and COVID-19 vaccines are up to date; consider zoster vaccination in eligible patients |
| Chronic disease optimization | Aggressively manage heart failure, diabetes, CKD, COPD — each increases recurrent sepsis risk |
| Antimicrobial stewardship | Ensure appropriate duration of antibiotics at discharge; avoid unnecessary prolonged courses that increase resistance |
| Early recognition education | Educate patients and caregivers about signs and symptoms of recurrent infection / sepsis requiring urgent medical attention |
| Functional rehabilitation | Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and exercise programs to reduce fall risk and functional decline |
| Nutritional support | Address malnutrition and sarcopenia; protein supplementation; dietitian involvement |
6. Emerging Concepts and Future Directions
6.1 Sepsis Phenotyping
Research has identified distinct sepsis phenotypes (endotypes) based on clinical and biomarker characteristics that may respond differently to specific therapies:11
| Phenotype | Characteristics | Potential Therapeutic Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha (α) | Low vasopressor requirements, low organ dysfunction, low mortality | Standard care; early de-escalation |
| Beta (β) | Older, more comorbidities, moderate organ dysfunction | Focus on comorbidity management; moderate resource utilization |
| Gamma (γ) | High inflammation, lower organ dysfunction; respiratory source common | May benefit from anti-inflammatory therapies |
| Delta (δ) | Highest organ dysfunction, highest mortality, hepatic and coagulation dysfunction | Most resource-intensive; may benefit from novel therapies targeting endothelial dysfunction |
6.2 Precision Medicine Approaches
- Biomarker-guided theranostics: Using panels of biomarkers (ferritin, IL-6, sTREM-1, HLA-DR, presepsin) to identify patients most likely to benefit from specific interventions (e.g., corticosteroids, immunostimulation)
- Genomic and transcriptomic profiling: Rapid gene expression classifiers (e.g., SeptiCyte LAB, Inflammatix) to distinguish sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflammation and to stratify patients by immune state
- Immunomodulatory therapies under investigation:
- IL-7 (interleukin-7) for sepsis-induced lymphopenia
- Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors for sepsis-induced immune paralysis
- GM-CSF for monocyte deactivation
- IFN-gamma for restoration of innate immune function
6.3 Artificial Intelligence in Sepsis
Machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being deployed for sepsis detection and management:12
- Predictive models: Early warning systems that analyze continuous vital sign streams and EHR data to predict sepsis onset 4–12 hours before clinical recognition
- Treatment optimization: Reinforcement learning models that recommend individualized fluid and vasopressor strategies based on patient response patterns
- Limitations: External validation remains inconsistent; algorithmic bias (racial, socioeconomic) is a significant concern; integration into clinical workflow is challenging; the evidence base for improved patient outcomes remains limited
7. Summary Tables — Quick Reference
7.1 Hour-1 Bundle Quick Reference
| Action | Target | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Measure lactate | Obtain level; remeasure if > 2 mmol/L | Serum or POC venous/arterial |
| Obtain blood cultures | ≥ 2 sets before antibiotics | Do NOT delay antibiotics > 45 min |
| Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics | Within 1 hour of recognition | Source-directed empiric therapy |
| Begin IV crystalloid | 30 mL/kg for hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 | Balanced crystalloid preferred; reassess |
| Start vasopressors | MAP ≥ 65 mmHg | Norepinephrine first-line; peripheral OK initially |
7.2 Vasopressor Quick Reference
| Agent | Dose Range | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Norepinephrine | 0.01–1.0+ μg/kg/min | First-line |
| Vasopressin | 0.03 U/min (fixed) | Second-line (add to norepinephrine) |
| Epinephrine | 0.01–0.5 μg/kg/min | Second-line (cardiac dysfunction) |
| Phenylephrine | 0.5–10 μg/kg/min | Salvage (tachyarrhythmia) |
| Angiotensin II | 20–40 ng/kg/min | Rescue (refractory shock) |
| Dobutamine | 2.5–20 μg/kg/min | Inotrope (low CO) |
7.3 Key Thresholds Quick Reference
| Parameter | Threshold | Action |
|---|---|---|
| MAP target | ≥ 65 mmHg | Fluids → vasopressors |
| Lactate | > 2 mmol/L | Resuscitate; remeasure q2–4h |
| Lactate | ≥ 4 mmol/L | 30 mL/kg crystalloid + vasopressors |
| Hemoglobin | < 7 g/dL | Transfuse pRBCs |
| Platelets | < 10,000/μL | Transfuse regardless of bleeding |
| Glucose | > 180 mg/dL (× 2) | Start insulin; target 140–180 mg/dL |
| Tidal volume | 6 mL/kg PBW | Lung-protective ventilation |
| Plateau pressure | ≤ 30 cmH2O | Reduce Vt if exceeded |
| PaO2/FiO2 < 150 | Moderate-severe ARDS | Prone positioning ≥ 16 hr/day |
| Hydrocortisone | 200 mg/day | For refractory septic shock |
References
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(11):e1063-e1143. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005337 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Azoulay E, Mokart D, Pène F, et al. “Outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: prospective multicenter data from France and Belgium — a groupe de recherche respiratoire en réanimation onco-hématologique study.” J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(22):2810-2818. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.2365 ↩︎
Nasa P, Juneja D, Singh O, et al. “Severe sepsis and its impact on outcome in elderly and very elderly patients admitted in intensive care unit.” J Intensive Care Med. 2012;27(3):179-183. DOI: 10.1177/0885066610397116 ↩︎ ↩︎
Lamontagne F, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, et al. “Effect of reduced exposure to vasopressors on 90-day mortality in older critically ill patients with vasodilatory hypotension: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA. 2020;323(10):938-949. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.0930 ↩︎
Bowyer L, Robinson HL, Barrett H, et al. “SOMANZ guidelines for the investigation and management of sepsis in pregnancy.” Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;57(5):540-551. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12710 ↩︎
Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. “Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis.” N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235-2244. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703058 ↩︎
Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, 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: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000723 ↩︎
Prescott HC, Angus DC. “Enhancing recovery from sepsis: a review.” JAMA. 2018;319(1):62-75. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17687 ↩︎
Iwashyna TJ, Ely EW, Smith DM, Langa KM. “Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis.” JAMA. 2010;304(16):1787-1794. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1553 ↩︎
Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. “Immunosuppression in sepsis: a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach.” Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):260-268. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70001-X ↩︎
Seymour CW, Kennedy JN, Wang S, et al. “Derivation, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clinical phenotypes for sepsis.” JAMA. 2019;321(20):2003-2017. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.5791 ↩︎
Wong A, Otles E, Donnelly JP, et al. “External validation of a widely implemented proprietary sepsis prediction model in hospitalized patients.” JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(8):1065-1070. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626 ↩︎