败血症表型、亚表型和内型:床旁护理准备好了吗?

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Current Opinion in Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1097/MCC.0000000000001178
Sias J Scherger, Andre C Kalil
{"title":"败血症表型、亚表型和内型:床旁护理准备好了吗?","authors":"Sias J Scherger, Andre C Kalil","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"406-413"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sepsis phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes: are they ready for bedside care?\",\"authors\":\"Sias J Scherger, Andre C Kalil\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"406-413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001178\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:败血症仍然是全球发病和死亡的主要原因,尽管经过几十年的研究,但仍未出现有效的疗法。脓毒症治疗缺乏进展的部分原因与脓毒症患者的显著异质性有关。本综述旨在强调有关败血症表型的最新文献以及进一步研究和治疗干预的潜力:最近的大量研究阐明了败血症的各种表型、亚表型和终末型。包括生命体征轨迹和微生物因素在内的临床参数、生物标志物调查以及基因组学、转录组学、蛋白质组学和代谢组学研究已经说明了脓毒症人群中的许多差异,这些差异对脓毒症的预测、诊断、治疗和预后具有重要意义。新型生物标志物可提高现有标志物的灵敏度和特异性,并识别败血症的并发症和后遗症。多组学已证明脓毒症人群存在显著差异,尤其是扩大了我们对免疫抑制性脓毒症表型的了解。尽管取得了进展,但这些发现可能会受到可重复性不高和临床实施的后勤障碍的限制。进一步的研究可将最新发现转化为床边护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sepsis phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes: are they ready for bedside care?

Purpose of review: Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention.

Recent findings: Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis.

Summary: Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Critical Care
Current Opinion in Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Critical Care delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in critical care from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring thirteen key topics – including the respiratory system, neuroscience, trauma and infectious diseases – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.
期刊最新文献
Advances in critical care nephrology through artificial intelligence. Cerebral oximetry in high-risk surgical patients: where are we? Emergency airway management in the post anesthesia care unit. Fluid management in the septic peri-operative patient. Is tranexamic acid appropriate for all patients undergoing high-risk surgery?
×
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