Daily Sepsis Research Analysis
Analyzed 43 papers and selected 3 impactful papers.
Summary
New pediatric sepsis criteria (2024) improved specificity but identified far fewer cases and may miss early septic shock; a multicenter RCT found that albumin supplementation did not improve 90-day survival in septic shock; and emergency-department risk stratification for imminent AKI in suspected sepsis can be enhanced using penKid and bio-ADM alongside key clinical risk factors.
Research Themes
- Sepsis definitions and early identification in pediatrics
- Fluid resuscitation strategies in septic shock
- Biomarker-driven risk stratification for sepsis-associated AKI
Selected Articles
1. Comparison of 2005 and 2024 diagnostic criteria for early identification of pediatric sepsis and septic shock in PICU patients: a prospective cohort study.
In a PICU prospective cohort, the 2024 pediatric sepsis criteria (Phoenix Sepsis Score) identified substantially fewer cases than the 2005 criteria and showed poor agreement (Kappa=0.161). While specificity improved, the stricter shock definition may delay recognition and treatment of early septic shock.
Impact: Criteria changes directly influence diagnosis and timing of interventions in pediatric sepsis. This study provides early prospective evidence that the 2024 definitions may trade sensitivity for specificity, affecting clinical triage.
Clinical Implications: Clinicians should be aware that the 2024 criteria may under-identify early septic shock; adjunctive tools (e.g., lactate, bedside ultrasound, and early warning scores) and low thresholds for escalation may be necessary to avoid delays.
Key Findings
- The 2024 criteria identified fewer sepsis cases (80 vs 240) and septic shock cases (49 vs 86) compared with the 2005 criteria.
- Diagnostic agreement between 2024 and 2005 criteria was poor (Kappa=0.161).
- Authors conclude the 2024 criteria improve specificity but risk missing early septic shock, potentially delaying treatment.
Methodological Strengths
- Prospective design with early (0–6 h) diagnostic capture in a PICU cohort
- Systematic comparison including Kappa agreement and performance analyses with predefined outcomes
Limitations
- Single-center setting limits generalizability
- The 2005 criteria were used as the reference standard, which has known limitations
Future Directions: External multicenter validation of the 2024 criteria, incorporation of dynamic physiologic data and AI-driven early warning to improve sensitivity without sacrificing specificity.
BACKGROUND: In 2024, new international consensus criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock (2024 criteria) were introduced, replacing the 2005 criteria. The 2024 criteria use the Phoenix Sepsis Score (PSS) to define sepsis (score ≥2) and septic shock (cardiovascular PSS ≥1) in children with suspected infection, moving away from the 2005 reliance on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). This study compares the two criteria in terms of diagnostic consistency, disease severity, prognosis, and early identification. METHODS: Pediatric patients with infection admitted to the PICU at the Capital Institute of Pediatrics from May 2023 to May 2025 were prospectively enrolled. Those diagnosed with sepsis within 0-6 h of admission were included. Data on demographics, infection sites, pathogens, laboratory markers (platelets, albumin, creatinine, lactate), organ dysfunction scores (PCIS), and clinical outcomes (mechanical ventilation, CRRT, MODS, DIC, mortality) were collected. Diagnostic agreement was assessed using Kappa statistics, and performance was compared using McNemar's test. The 2005 criteria served as the reference for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the 2024 criteria. RESULTS: The 2024 criteria identified fewer sepsis (80 vs. 240) and septic shock (49 vs. 86) cases. Diagnostic agreement was poor (Kappa = 0.161, CONCLUSIONS: The 2024 sepsis criteria improve specificity but may overlook early septic shock. The 2024 septic shock criteria are stricter, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment. Prospective studies and AI-supported early warning models are needed for better early identification and outcomes.
2. Albumin Replacement Therapy in Septic Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
In a multicenter open-label RCT (n=440), targeting serum albumin ≥3.0 g/dL in septic shock did not reduce 90-day mortality compared with crystalloids (43.3% vs 45.9%; RR 0.94; P=0.71). Secondary outcomes were also not different; the trial was underpowered due to early termination.
Impact: This is a contemporary multicenter RCT directly informing fluid strategy in septic shock, providing high-level evidence that albumin targeting does not improve survival.
Clinical Implications: Routine albumin supplementation to achieve ≥3.0 g/dL in septic shock should not be expected to improve survival; crystalloid-based resuscitation remains standard. Albumin may still be considered selectively (e.g., severe hypoalbuminemia), but further trials are needed.
Key Findings
- 90-day mortality was similar with albumin vs crystalloids (43.3% vs 45.9%; RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76–1.17; P=0.71).
- No significant differences were observed across secondary endpoints (28-/60-day mortality, organ failure, ICU/hospital length of stay, fluid balance, adverse events).
- The trial was prematurely terminated for low enrollment, limiting power and precision of estimates.
Methodological Strengths
- Multicenter randomized design with prespecified primary endpoint (90-day mortality)
- Protocolized albumin target and trial registration (NCT03869385)
Limitations
- Open-label design may introduce performance bias
- Premature termination reduced statistical power and precision
Future Directions: Adequately powered RCTs targeting different albumin thresholds, phenotypes (e.g., hypoalbuminemia, capillary leak), and timing, with cost-effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes.
IMPORTANCE: Albumin supplementation may reduce mortality in patients with septic shock; however, data from randomized clinical trials are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of albumin administration on outcomes in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 21, 2019, and May 2, 2022. Patients from 23 intensive care units in Germany enrolled within 24 hours of the onset of septic shock were followed up for outcome data up to 90 days. The statistical trial report was completed and filed with the federal authorities in December 2023; additional analyses were completed in October 2024. The study was terminated prematurely due to low enrollment rates. INTERVENTIONS: Protocol group patients received 20% albumin to maintain serum albumin levels of at least 3.0 g/dL for up to 28 days during their intensive care unit admission. The control group received standard fluid administration with crystalloids. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was 90-day mortality; secondary end points included 28-day, 60-day, intensive care unit and in-hospital mortality, organ dysfunction or failure, total amount of fluid administration and total fluid balance while in the intensive care unit, duration of intensive care and hospital stays, and frequency of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 440 randomized patients (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 290 [65.9%] male), 222 received albumin and 218 received standard fluids. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Ninety-day mortality was 43.3% (91 of 210) in the albumin group vs 45.9% (96 of 209) in controls (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.76-1.17; P = .71). No significant differences were observed for secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with septic shock, albumin administration was safe but did not improve 90-day survival. As this trial was prematurely terminated, results remain inconclusive and additional studies are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03869385.
3. NephroPOC - Risk assessment and prediction of acute kidney injury in emergency patients with suspected organ dysfunction: Secondary analysis from the prospective observational LifePOC study.
In a LifePOC sub-cohort (n=440; qSOFA≥1), penKid and bio-ADM moderately predicted AKI within 48 hours (AUC ~0.65). Independent AKI risk factors included CKD, confirmed sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and higher penKid, whereas restrictive fluid management was associated with lower AKI risk.
Impact: Provides practical, ED-adjacent biomarker thresholds and clinical factors to flag imminent AKI in suspected sepsis, supporting earlier nephroprotective strategies.
Clinical Implications: Combining penKid and bio-ADM with clinical risk factors can guide early nephrology consults, tighter fluid stewardship, and closer monitoring for SA-AKI within the first 48–72 hours.
Key Findings
- penKid and bio-ADM predicted 48-hour AKI with moderate accuracy (AUC 0.645 and 0.647, respectively).
- Higher AKI risk was associated with CKD (OR 2.36), confirmed sepsis (OR 2.41), mechanical ventilation (OR 3.03), and elevated penKid (OR 2.21).
- Restrictive fluid management correlated with lower AKI risk (OR 0.43).
Methodological Strengths
- Prospective multicenter parent study with predefined biomarker panel
- Multivariable modeling including clinical and biomarker covariates with AUC reporting
Limitations
- Secondary analysis may be subject to selection and measurement biases
- Moderate discrimination (AUC ~0.65) limits standalone clinical use
Future Directions: External validation and integration of penKid/bio-ADM into ED triage pathways with interventional testing of biomarker-guided fluid and nephroprotective strategies.
We aimed to assess markers and risk factors for imminent acute kidney injury (AKI) in emergency patients, as risk stratification in the emergency department is currently not widely used. Using data from a sub-cohort (440 patients) of the prospective multicentre LifePOC study (1434 patients), proenkephalin A 119-159 (penKid) was assessed for early identification of subclinical kidney damage compared to serum creatinine in emergency patients with a qSOFA score ≥1. Logistic regression was applied to assess the usefulness of penKid, four further biomarkers (midregional pro-adrenomedullin, bioactive adrenomedullin, dipeptidyl-peptidase-3, procalcitonin) and clinical risk factors to predict AKI within 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after admission, need for organ support and 28-day mortality. PenKid and bio-adrenomedullin performed moderately to predict AKI within 48 h (AUC 0.645, 95% CI: 0.582-0.703 and AUC 0.647, 95% CI: 0.583-0.707, respectively). Pre-existing chronic kidney disease (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.06-5.27), confirmed sepsis (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.28-4.56), mechanical ventilation (OR 3.03, 95% CI: 1.48-6.19), and elevated levels of penKid (OR 2.21, 95% CI: 1.60-3.07) at admission were associated with an increased risk of AKI whereas a restrictive fluid management (OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.71) was associated with a lower risk of AKI. Patients at high AKI risk may be identified based on specific risk factors, bio-ADM and penKid. The trial was registered in the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRKS00011188) on 20 October 2016.