Emergency medicine updates: Evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE American Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.055
Brit Long, Michael Gottlieb
{"title":"Emergency medicine updates: Evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.","authors":"Brit Long, Michael Gottlieb","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Sepsis and septic shock are common conditions evaluated and managed in the emergency department (ED), and these conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There have been several recent updates in the literature, including guidelines, on the evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This is the first paper in a two-part series that provides emergency clinicians with evidence-based updates concerning sepsis and septic shock. This first paper focuses on evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The evaluation, diagnosis, and management of sepsis have evolved since the first definition in 1991. Current guidelines emphasize rapid diagnosis to improve patient outcomes. However, scoring systems have conflicting data for diagnosis, and sepsis should be considered in any patient with infection and abnormal vital signs, evidence of systemic inflammation (e.g., elevated white blood cell count or C-reactive protein), or evidence of end-organ dysfunction. The clinician should consider septic shock in any patient with infection and hypotension despite volume resuscitation or who require vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mmHg. There are a variety of sources of sepsis but the most common include pulmonary, urinary tract, abdomen, and skin/soft tissue. Examples of other less common etiologies include the central nervous system (e.g., meningitis, encephalitis), spine (e.g., spinal epidural abscess, osteomyelitis), cardiac (e.g., endocarditis), and joints (e.g., septic arthritis). Evaluation may include biomarkers such as procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and lactate, but these should not be used in isolation to exclude sepsis. Imaging is a key component of evaluation and should be based on the suspected source.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There have been several recent updates in the literature including guidelines concerning sepsis and septic shock; an understanding of these updates can assist emergency clinicians and improve the care of these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"90 ","pages":"169-178"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.01.055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis and septic shock are common conditions evaluated and managed in the emergency department (ED), and these conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There have been several recent updates in the literature, including guidelines, on the evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.

Objective: This is the first paper in a two-part series that provides emergency clinicians with evidence-based updates concerning sepsis and septic shock. This first paper focuses on evaluation and diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock.

Discussion: The evaluation, diagnosis, and management of sepsis have evolved since the first definition in 1991. Current guidelines emphasize rapid diagnosis to improve patient outcomes. However, scoring systems have conflicting data for diagnosis, and sepsis should be considered in any patient with infection and abnormal vital signs, evidence of systemic inflammation (e.g., elevated white blood cell count or C-reactive protein), or evidence of end-organ dysfunction. The clinician should consider septic shock in any patient with infection and hypotension despite volume resuscitation or who require vasopressors to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mmHg. There are a variety of sources of sepsis but the most common include pulmonary, urinary tract, abdomen, and skin/soft tissue. Examples of other less common etiologies include the central nervous system (e.g., meningitis, encephalitis), spine (e.g., spinal epidural abscess, osteomyelitis), cardiac (e.g., endocarditis), and joints (e.g., septic arthritis). Evaluation may include biomarkers such as procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and lactate, but these should not be used in isolation to exclude sepsis. Imaging is a key component of evaluation and should be based on the suspected source.

Conclusion: There have been several recent updates in the literature including guidelines concerning sepsis and septic shock; an understanding of these updates can assist emergency clinicians and improve the care of these patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
期刊最新文献
Sympathetic crashing acute pulmonary edema: Concerning CT, HFNO, and urapidil. MINOCA post-blood donation: Beyond volume loss. Response to the Letter: MINOCA Post-Blood Donation: Beyond Volume Loss. Bilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block for intraabdominal pain relief. An uncommon case of ptosis from invasive bacterial sinusitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1