{"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.
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.