Sepsis 2025: Evolving Definitions and Implications for Bedside Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The landscape of sepsis recognition, definition, and management continues to evolve rapidly, driven by advances in understanding of pathophysiology, early warning systems, and artificial intelligence applications. Eight years after the introduction of Sepsis-3 definitions, critical care practitioners face ongoing challenges in balancing sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic criteria while optimizing patient outcomes.

Objectives: This review synthesizes current evidence regarding sepsis definitions, examines controversies surrounding Sepsis-3 criteria, compares traditional scoring systems with emerging AI-assisted approaches, and provides practical guidance for bedside clinicians.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of publications from 2016-2024, focusing on sepsis definitions, early warning scores, and artificial intelligence applications in sepsis recognition.

Conclusions: While Sepsis-3 definitions provide specificity advantages, controversies persist regarding sensitivity in certain populations. Hybrid approaches combining traditional scoring with AI-assisted early warning systems show promise for improving early recognition and outcomes.

Keywords: Sepsis, Sepsis-3, qSOFA, NEWS2, artificial intelligence, early warning systems, critical care

Introduction

Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, affecting over 50 million people annually and contributing to approximately 11 million deaths globally.¹ The journey from infection to septic shock represents a time-sensitive continuum where early recognition and intervention dramatically impact outcomes. The "golden hour" concept, while debated, emphasizes that delays in appropriate therapy exponentially increase mortality risk.²

The evolution of sepsis definitions reflects our growing understanding of this complex syndrome. From the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria of the 1990s to the organ dysfunction-focused Sepsis-3 definitions of 2016, each iteration has attempted to balance sensitivity and specificity while maintaining clinical utility.³ However, as we advance deeper into the 2020s, emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and machine learning, are reshaping how we approach sepsis recognition and management.

This review examines the current state of sepsis definitions, addresses ongoing controversies, and explores the integration of traditional clinical assessment with cutting-edge AI-assisted early warning systems.

The Sepsis-3 Revolution: Progress and Persistent Controversies

Core Principles of Sepsis-3

The 2016 Sepsis-3 task force fundamentally redefined sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection."⁴ This definition shifted focus from inflammation-based SIRS criteria to organ dysfunction measured by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.

Key Components:

Sepsis: Suspected infection + SOFA score increase ≥2 points
Septic Shock: Sepsis + vasopressor requirement + lactate >2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation
qSOFA: Simplified bedside screening tool (altered mental status, systolic BP ≤100 mmHg, respiratory rate ≥22/min)

The Sensitivity Debate: Where Sepsis-3 Falls Short

Pearl #1: The Emergency Department Dilemma

qSOFA's specificity comes at the cost of sensitivity, potentially missing 40-50% of sepsis cases in emergency departments.

Multiple large-scale studies have highlighted qSOFA's limited sensitivity in emergency settings. Seymour et al. demonstrated that qSOFA identified only 58% of sepsis cases compared to SIRS criteria's 91% sensitivity.⁵ This trade-off between sensitivity and specificity creates a clinical conundrum: while qSOFA reduces false positives, it may delay recognition in patients who could benefit from early intervention.

Oyster #1: The Immunocompromised Population

Sepsis-3 criteria perform poorly in immunocompromised patients who may not mount typical inflammatory responses.

Immunocompromised patients, including those with hematologic malignancies, solid organ transplants, or chronic immunosuppression, often present with atypical sepsis manifestations.⁶ These patients may fail to meet qSOFA criteria despite having life-threatening infections, necessitating modified assessment approaches.

Clinical Hack #1: In immunocompromised patients, lower the threshold for sepsis consideration. A single qSOFA criterion combined with suspected infection should prompt aggressive evaluation and empirical therapy consideration.

Age-Related Considerations

Pearl #2: Pediatric Sepsis Recognition

Sepsis-3 criteria were not validated for pediatric populations, where age-specific vital sign ranges complicate assessment.

Pediatric sepsis recognition remains challenging as normal vital signs vary significantly with age. The Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score has been developed but requires further validation.⁷ Pediatric early warning scores specific to age groups show superior performance compared to adapted adult criteria.

Oyster #2: Geriatric Sepsis Subtleties

Elderly patients may present with sepsis without meeting traditional fever criteria, making recognition particularly challenging.

Geriatric patients frequently present with hypothermia rather than fever, altered mental status as the predominant symptom, and blunted physiologic responses.⁸ Standard qSOFA components may be less reliable in this population, requiring modified assessment strategies.

Traditional Early Warning Systems: NEWS2 vs qSOFA

National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2): The UK Approach

NEWS2 represents a comprehensive physiological scoring system incorporating respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, supplemental oxygen use, temperature, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and consciousness level.⁹ Unlike qSOFA's binary approach, NEWS2 provides a graduated response framework.

NEWS2 Advantages:

Higher sensitivity for detecting clinical deterioration
Graduated escalation protocols
Extensive validation across diverse healthcare settings
Integration with electronic health records

NEWS2 Limitations:

Higher complexity requiring calculation
Potential for alert fatigue
Limited specificity for sepsis vs. other causes of deterioration

Comparative Performance: qSOFA vs NEWS2

Recent meta-analyses suggest NEWS2 demonstrates superior sensitivity for sepsis detection (pooled sensitivity 0.88 vs 0.59 for qSOFA) while maintaining acceptable specificity.¹⁰ However, qSOFA's simplicity makes it more feasible for resource-limited settings and rapid bedside assessment.

Clinical Hack #2: Hybrid Screening Strategy

Use NEWS2 for continuous monitoring in admitted patients and qSOFA for initial emergency department screening, with lower thresholds in high-risk populations.

Modified Early Warning Scores

Several institutions have developed modified early warning scores incorporating lactate levels, procalcitonin, or other biomarkers. The Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) with lactate integration shows promise for improved sepsis recognition in emergency departments.¹¹

Pearl #3: Lactate as the "Vital Sign" Serial lactate measurements provide more prognostic information than single values, with clearance rates predicting outcomes better than absolute levels.

Artificial Intelligence: The Next Frontier

Machine Learning Applications in Sepsis Recognition

Artificial intelligence has emerged as a transformative tool in sepsis recognition, offering the potential to integrate vast amounts of clinical data in real-time. Several AI-based early warning systems have shown remarkable performance in clinical trials.

Epic Sepsis Model (ESM)

The Epic Sepsis Model, implemented across numerous health systems, uses machine learning to analyze electronic health record data continuously. Initial studies demonstrated impressive performance with C-statistics exceeding 0.85 for sepsis prediction.¹² However, real-world implementation revealed challenges including alert fatigue and workflow disruption.

Oyster #3: The Alert Fatigue Paradox AI systems with high sensitivity can generate excessive alerts, potentially leading to desensitization and missed critical cases.

Johns Hopkins APM

The Johns Hopkins All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG) Mortality Probability Model represents another sophisticated AI approach, integrating demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, and medication data.¹³

Advantages of AI-Assisted Recognition

Continuous Monitoring: Unlike episodic assessments, AI systems provide real-time risk stratification
Pattern Recognition: Machine learning can identify subtle patterns invisible to human cognition
Integration Capability: AI can synthesize diverse data streams including imaging, laboratory, and physiologic monitoring
Personalization: Algorithms can be trained on specific populations or clinical contexts

Pearl #4: AI Augmentation, Not Replacement

Most successful AI implementations augment rather than replace clinical judgment, providing decision support rather than autonomous decision-making.

Implementation Challenges

Despite promising performance metrics, AI implementation faces significant hurdles:

Validation Requirements: Models trained on one population may not generalize to others
Workflow Integration: Successful implementation requires seamless EHR integration
Clinician Trust: Acceptance depends on transparency and explainability
Regulatory Oversight: FDA approval processes for AI-based medical devices continue to evolve

Clinical Hack #3: Staged AI Implementation Begin with AI as a "silent" system running parallel to existing protocols, gradually increasing reliance as confidence and workflow integration improve.

Emerging Biomarkers and Point-of-Care Testing

Procalcitonin: Refined Role in 2025

Procalcitonin (PCT) has evolved from a diagnostic marker to a tool for antibiotic stewardship. Current evidence supports its use for:

Distinguishing bacterial from viral infections in selected populations
Guiding antibiotic duration rather than initiation
Monitoring treatment response in complex cases¹⁴

Oyster #4: Procalcitonin Pitfalls PCT levels can be elevated in non-infectious conditions (burns, trauma, surgery) and may remain low in immunocompromised patients despite severe bacterial infections.

Novel Biomarkers on the Horizon

Presepsin (sCD14-ST)

Presepsin shows promise for early sepsis detection with potentially faster kinetics than PCT. Recent studies suggest superior diagnostic accuracy in certain populations.¹⁵

MicroRNAs and Genomic Markers

Circulating microRNAs and host genomic response patterns represent cutting-edge approaches to sepsis diagnosis and prognostication.¹⁶

Pearl #5: Biomarker Panels vs Single Markers Combination biomarker panels (PCT + presepsin + lactate + CRP) may offer superior diagnostic accuracy compared to individual markers.

Special Populations and Modified Approaches

Surgical Patients

Post-operative sepsis recognition presents unique challenges as surgical stress can mimic sepsis manifestations. Modified scoring systems incorporating surgical-specific factors show improved performance.¹⁷

Clinical Hack #4: Post-operative Sepsis Screening In post-operative patients, focus on trend changes rather than absolute values. New-onset organ dysfunction >24 hours post-surgery should trigger sepsis evaluation.

Obstetric Patients

Pregnancy-related physiological changes necessitate modified sepsis criteria. The Sepsis in Obstetrics Score (SOS) provides pregnancy-specific risk assessment.¹⁸

Critical Care Unit Applications

In ICU settings where organ dysfunction is common, distinguishing sepsis from other causes of deterioration requires sophisticated approaches. Dynamic scoring systems that account for baseline dysfunction show promise.¹⁹

Implementation Strategies for Clinical Practice

Institutional Protocol Development

Successful sepsis recognition programs require multidisciplinary approach:

Education Programs: Regular training on recognition criteria and response protocols
Technology Integration: EHR-embedded screening tools and alerts
Quality Metrics: Continuous monitoring of recognition rates and outcomes
Feedback Loops: Regular performance review and protocol refinement

Pearl #6: The Bundle Approach

Combine recognition protocols with treatment bundles for maximum impact. Recognition without immediate action capabilities limits effectiveness.

Resource Allocation Considerations

Different healthcare settings require tailored approaches:

High-Resource Settings: AI-assisted continuous monitoring with sophisticated alerting systems
Medium-Resource Settings: Electronic NEWS2 implementation with basic decision support
Low-Resource Settings: Simplified qSOFA-based protocols with enhanced clinical education

Clinical Hack #5: Context-Specific Implementation Match your sepsis recognition strategy to available resources and staff capabilities. A sophisticated system that isn't consistently used is inferior to a simple system with high compliance.

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Integration of Wearable Technology

Continuous monitoring through wearable devices offers potential for ultra-early sepsis recognition in both hospital and community settings.²⁰ Integration of heart rate variability, skin temperature, and activity patterns may provide novel early warning capabilities.

Genomic Medicine Applications

Pharmacogenomic testing for antibiotic selection and host response profiling for personalized sepsis management represent emerging frontiers.²¹

Artificial Intelligence Evolution

Next-generation AI systems incorporating:

Natural language processing of clinical notes
Integration of imaging data
Real-time treatment response modeling
Personalized risk prediction based on individual patient characteristics

Pearl #7: The Precision Medicine Future Future sepsis management will likely be personalized based on individual genetic profiles, microbiome composition, and real-time physiologic monitoring.

Practical Recommendations for Clinicians

Emergency Department Protocol

Primary Screening: Use qSOFA for initial triage with modified thresholds for high-risk populations
Secondary Assessment: NEWS2 calculation for patients meeting any qSOFA criteria
Biomarker Integration: PCT and lactate measurement for patients with intermediate probability
AI Augmentation: Where available, use AI-assisted tools as decision support

Hospital Ward Implementation

Continuous Monitoring: NEWS2-based electronic surveillance with automated alerting
High-Risk Identification: Enhanced monitoring protocols for immunocompromised and elderly patients
Trend Analysis: Focus on trajectory rather than single-point assessments
Multidisciplinary Response: Rapid response team activation protocols

ICU Applications

Dynamic Scoring: Account for baseline organ dysfunction in assessment
Biomarker Trends: Serial measurements for treatment response monitoring
AI Integration: Advanced pattern recognition for subtle deterioration detection

Clinical Hack #6: The 3-Tier Approach Implement a three-tier recognition system: (1) Simple screening for all patients, (2) Enhanced monitoring for intermediate risk, (3) AI-assisted continuous surveillance for high-risk populations.

Economic Considerations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Recent economic evaluations suggest that enhanced sepsis recognition programs demonstrate favorable cost-effectiveness ratios, primarily through:

Reduced ICU length of stay
Decreased mortality-associated costs
Prevention of sepsis progression
Improved antibiotic stewardship²²

Implementation Costs vs Benefits

While AI-assisted systems require significant upfront investment, the long-term benefits through improved outcomes and resource utilization often justify the expenditure in high-volume centers.

Quality Metrics and Performance Monitoring

Key Performance Indicators

Successful sepsis recognition programs should monitor:

Process Metrics:
- Time to recognition
- Screening tool compliance
- Alert response rates
Outcome Metrics:
- In-hospital mortality
- ICU length of stay
- Readmission rates
Safety Metrics:
- False positive rates
- Missed diagnosis rates
- Alert fatigue indicators

Pearl #8: Balanced Scorecards Monitor both sensitivity and specificity metrics. Programs that optimize only sensitivity often suffer from alert fatigue and resource strain.

Addressing Implementation Barriers

Common Challenges and Solutions

Alert Fatigue: Implement tiered alerting systems with risk-stratified responses
Workflow Disruption: Engage end-users in design and implementation phases
Technology Limitations: Develop robust backup protocols for system failures
Staff Resistance: Provide comprehensive education and demonstrate outcome improvements

Clinical Hack #7: Change Management Strategy Successful implementation requires champions at multiple levels: administrative support, physician leadership, and frontline staff engagement.

International Perspectives and Guidelines

Global Variation in Approaches

Different countries and healthcare systems have adopted varying approaches to sepsis recognition:

United Kingdom: NEWS2-based national implementation
United States: Institution-specific protocols with increasing AI integration
Australia/New Zealand: ANZICS guidelines emphasizing early recognition and intervention
Europe: Surviving Sepsis Campaign adaptation with local modifications²³

Regulatory Considerations

FDA and international regulatory bodies continue to evolve oversight of AI-based medical devices, creating both opportunities and challenges for implementation.

Conclusions and Future Outlook

The landscape of sepsis recognition in 2025 reflects a dynamic interplay between traditional clinical assessment, validated scoring systems, and emerging artificial intelligence applications. While Sepsis-3 definitions provided important advances in specificity and organ dysfunction focus, ongoing controversies regarding sensitivity, particularly in vulnerable populations, necessitate nuanced implementation strategies.

The integration of AI-assisted early warning systems offers unprecedented opportunities for continuous risk assessment and early intervention. However, successful implementation requires careful attention to workflow integration, alert optimization, and clinician acceptance. The future likely lies not in replacement of clinical judgment but in sophisticated augmentation of human decision-making capabilities.

Key takeaways for practicing clinicians include:

Population-Specific Approaches: Recognize that no single screening tool performs optimally across all populations
Technology Integration: Embrace AI tools as decision support while maintaining clinical oversight
Continuous Quality Improvement: Implement robust monitoring systems to track both process and outcome metrics
Personalized Medicine: Prepare for future approaches incorporating individual patient characteristics and genomic profiles

As we advance through the decade, successful sepsis recognition programs will be characterized by adaptive protocols that leverage the best of traditional clinical assessment, validated scoring systems, and cutting-edge artificial intelligence to optimize patient outcomes while maintaining workflow efficiency and clinician satisfaction.

The journey from infection to sepsis remains time-critical, but our tools for early recognition and intervention continue to evolve rapidly. The challenge for critical care practitioners is to thoughtfully integrate these advances while maintaining focus on the fundamental goal: improving outcomes for patients with this devastating syndrome.

References

Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.
Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589-1596.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):775-787.
Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
Cooksley T, Rice TW, Gupta K, et al. Sepsis in the immunocompromised patient. Br J Hosp Med. 2018;79(10):566-570.
Matics TJ, Sanchez-Pinto LN. Adaptation and validation of a pediatric sequential organ failure assessment score and evaluation of the Sepsis-3 definitions in critically ill children. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(10):e172352.
Gavazzi G, Krause KH. Ageing and infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2(11):659-666.
Royal College of Physicians. National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2: Standardising the assessment of acute-illness severity in the NHS. Updated report of a working party. London: RCP, 2017.
Usman OA, Usman AA, Ward MA. Comparison of SIRS, qSOFA, and NEWS for the early identification of sepsis in the Emergency Department. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(8):1490-1497.
Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, Gemmel L. Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521-526.
Rothman MJ, Rothman SI, Beals J 4th. Development and validation of a continuous measure of patient condition using the Electronic Medical Record. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(5):837-848.
Escobar GJ, Liu VX, Schuler A, Lawson B, Greene JD, Kipnis P. Automated identification of adults at risk for in-hospital clinical deterioration. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(20):1951-1960.
Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic treatment on mortality in acute respiratory infections: a patient level meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):95-107.
Chenevier-Gobeaux C, Borderie D, Weiss N, Mallet-Coste T, Claessens YE. Presepsin (sCD14-ST), an innate immune response marker in sepsis. Clin Chim Acta. 2015;450:97-103.
Vasilescu C, Rossi S, Shimizu M, et al. MicroRNA fingerprints identify miR-150 as a plasma prognostic marker in patients with sepsis. PLoS One. 2009;4(10):e7405.
Khanna AK, Maheshwari K, Mao G, et al. Association between mean arterial pressure and acute kidney injury and a composite of myocardial injury and mortality in postoperative critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort analysis. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(7):910-917.
Albright CM, Ali TN, Lopes V, Rouse DJ, Anderson BL. The Sepsis in Obstetrics Score: a model to identify risk of morbidity from sepsis in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):39.e1-8.
Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749-1755.
Weenk M, Bredie SJ, Koeneman M, et al. Continuous monitoring of vital signs using wearable devices on the general ward: pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(7):e91.
Wong HR, Cvijanovich NZ, Anas N, et al. Improved risk stratification in pediatric septic shock using both protein and mRNA biomarkers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(4):494-501.
Torio CM, Moore BJ. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2013. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Statistical Brief #204. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181-1247.

Sunday, August 24, 2025