Early Recognition of Sepsis: Pitfalls, Atypical Presentations, and Evolving Definitions in the Era of Sepsis-3

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients, with early recognition being paramount for optimal outcomes. The introduction of Sepsis-3 criteria has redefined our approach to sepsis identification, yet significant challenges persist in early detection, particularly in atypical presentations.

Objective: To provide critical care practitioners with evidence-based insights into early sepsis recognition, highlighting common pitfalls, atypical presentations, and practical applications of evolving definitions.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature focusing on sepsis recognition strategies, diagnostic challenges, and clinical pearls for critical care practice.

Conclusions: Early sepsis recognition requires a high index of suspicion, understanding of diverse presentations, and systematic approach combining clinical judgment with validated screening tools. The Sepsis-3 criteria, while improving specificity, may delay recognition in certain populations, necessitating nuanced clinical application.

Keywords: Sepsis, early recognition, Sepsis-3, qSOFA, critical care, diagnostic challenges

Introduction

Sepsis affects over 49 million people globally each year, contributing to approximately 11 million deaths annually.¹ The critical importance of early recognition cannot be overstated—each hour of delay in appropriate antimicrobial therapy increases mortality by 7.6%.² The evolution from Sepsis-1 through Sepsis-3 criteria reflects our growing understanding of sepsis pathophysiology, yet early recognition remains challenging, particularly in vulnerable populations and atypical presentations.

The Sepsis-3 definition, introduced in 2016, redefined sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection," with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score serving as the primary metric for organ dysfunction.³ While this definition improved prognostic accuracy, it introduced new challenges in early recognition, particularly in resource-limited settings and specific patient populations.

Evolution of Sepsis Definitions: From SIRS to Sepsis-3

Historical Perspective

The journey from the 1991 Consensus Conference definitions to Sepsis-3 represents a paradigm shift in sepsis conceptualization:

Sepsis-1 (1991): Sepsis defined as SIRS + infection

Advantages: High sensitivity, easy bedside application
Limitations: Poor specificity, overdiagnosis, limited prognostic value⁴

Sepsis-2 (2001): Expanded criteria with additional signs and biomarkers

Advances: Recognition of heterogeneous presentations
Challenges: Increased complexity without improved outcomes⁵

Sepsis-3 (2016): Organ dysfunction-centered approach

Strengths: Improved prognostic accuracy, elimination of "severe sepsis"
Concerns: Potential delays in recognition, complexity in resource-limited settings⁶

Clinical Pearl 🔹

The transition from SIRS-based to organ dysfunction-based criteria represents a fundamental shift from sensitivity-focused to specificity-focused sepsis identification. Understanding both systems remains crucial for comprehensive patient assessment.

Sepsis-3 Criteria: Practical Application and Limitations

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA)

qSOFA was introduced as a bedside screening tool comprising three criteria:

Altered mental status (GCS ≤ 13)
Systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg
Respiratory rate ≥ 22/min

Scoring: ≥2 points suggests high risk of poor outcome typical of sepsis⁷

SOFA Score Components

System	Score 0	Score 1	Score 2	Score 3	Score 4
Respiratory (PaO₂/FiO₂)	≥400	300-399	200-299	100-199	<100
Coagulation (Platelets ×10³/μL)	≥150	100-149	50-99	20-49	<20
Hepatic (Bilirubin mg/dL)	<1.2	1.2-1.9	2.0-5.9	6.0-11.9	>12.0
Cardiovascular	MAP≥70	MAP<70	Dopamine≤5 or any dobutamine	Dopamine>5 or norepinephrine≤0.1	Dopamine>15 or norepinephrine>0.1
CNS (GCS)	15	13-14	10-12	6-9	<6
Renal (Creatinine mg/dL)	<1.2	1.2-1.9	2.0-3.4	3.5-4.9 or <500mL/day	>5.0 or <200mL/day

Limitations of Sepsis-3 in Early Recognition

Delayed Detection: qSOFA has lower sensitivity (59%) compared to SIRS (88%) for sepsis identification⁸
Population-Specific Issues: Reduced performance in immunocompromised, elderly, and obstetric populations⁹
Resource Dependency: SOFA calculation requires laboratory values and arterial blood gases
Baseline Organ Dysfunction: Challenging in patients with pre-existing organ impairment

Clinical Hack 💡

Use qSOFA as an "alert system" rather than definitive diagnostic tool. A qSOFA ≥2 should prompt immediate comprehensive assessment and SOFA calculation, not delay in treatment initiation.

Pitfalls in Early Sepsis Recognition

1. Over-reliance on Traditional Signs

The Fever Trap: Approximately 10-15% of septic patients present without fever, particularly:

Elderly patients (>65 years)
Immunocompromised individuals
Patients on immunosuppressive therapy
Those with chronic kidney disease¹⁰

The White Blood Cell Paradox: Normal or low WBC count doesn't exclude sepsis:

30% of septic patients have normal WBC count
Leukopenia may indicate more severe infection
Focus on left shift and immature forms¹¹

2. Cognitive Biases

Anchoring Bias: Fixation on initial diagnosis

Example: Attributing altered mental status to known dementia rather than considering sepsis

Availability Heuristic: Recent experience influencing judgment

Mitigation: Systematic screening protocols

Confirmation Bias: Seeking information supporting initial impression

Solution: Active search for contradictory evidence¹²

3. Population-Specific Challenges

Elderly Patients (The Great Masqueraders):

Blunted inflammatory response
Atypical presentations (falls, confusion, weakness)
Baseline organ dysfunction
Polypharmacy effects¹³

Immunocompromised Patients:

Absent or minimal inflammatory response
Unusual pathogens
Non-specific presentations
Higher mortality despite lower inflammatory markers¹⁴

Clinical Pearl 🔹

In elderly patients, the "FASTER" mnemonic can help: Falls, Anorexia, Syncope, Tachypnea, Encephalopathy, Restlessness—all potential early sepsis signs in this population.

Atypical Presentations: The Sepsis Chameleon

1. Neurological Presentations

Acute Encephalopathy: Often the earliest sign

Confusion, disorientation, altered sleep-wake cycle
May precede fever or hemodynamic instability
Particularly common in elderly patients¹⁵

Focal Neurological Deficits: Rare but reported

Stroke-like presentations
Movement disorders
Seizures

2. Cardiovascular Masquerades

Septic Cardiomyopathy:

Heart failure symptoms without obvious infection
Preserved ejection fraction with diastolic dysfunction
Troponin elevation without coronary disease¹⁶

Cryptogenic Shock:

Distributive shock without obvious source
Normal or elevated cardiac output
Systemic vascular resistance changes

3. Respiratory Variants

Silent Hypoxia:

Significant oxygen desaturation with minimal dyspnea
Particularly noted in COVID-19 sepsis
Pulse oximetry screening crucial¹⁷

Non-Productive Cough:

May be only respiratory symptom
Often dismissed as viral illness
Combined with subtle systemic signs

4. Gastrointestinal Deception

Paralytic Ileus:

Abdominal distension without obvious cause
May precede other sepsis signs
Common in abdominal sepsis¹⁸

Unexplained Nausea/Vomiting:

Non-specific but early sign
Often attributed to other causes
Important in elderly patients

Oyster 🦪

The "Septic Syndrome Without Source" represents up to 20% of sepsis cases. These patients require aggressive workup including advanced imaging, echocardiography, and consideration of unusual pathogens or endovascular infections.

High-Risk Populations and Scenarios

1. Post-Operative Patients

Risk Factors:

Prolonged procedures (>4 hours)
Emergency surgery
Bowel perforation or contamination
Immunosuppression¹⁹

Early Warning Signs:

Unexplained tachycardia
Delayed return of bowel function
Persistent pain out of proportion
Failure to progress as expected

2. Cancer Patients

Unique Considerations:

Neutropenic sepsis (medical emergency)
Atypical pathogen spectrum
Drug-resistant organisms
Tumor fever vs. sepsis²⁰

Red Flags:

Any fever in neutropenic patient
Rapid clinical deterioration
New respiratory symptoms
Central line-associated symptoms

3. Obstetric Population

Physiological Confounders:

Pregnancy-related tachycardia and tachypnea
Dilutional anemia
Altered mental status from pain/medications²¹

High-Risk Scenarios:

Postpartum endometritis
Chorioamnionitis
Septic abortion
Group B Streptococcus infections

Clinical Hack 💡

In neutropenic patients, use the MASCC score for risk stratification, but remember: any fever in severe neutropenia (ANC <100) is sepsis until proven otherwise and requires immediate empirical antibiotics.

Biomarkers in Early Recognition

Traditional Markers

Lactate:

Threshold: >2 mmol/L suggests tissue hypoperfusion
Serial Measurements: More valuable than single values
Limitations: Multiple non-septic causes²²

C-Reactive Protein (CRP):

Sensitivity: High but non-specific
Kinetics: Peaks 24-48 hours after stimulus
Clinical Use: Trending more valuable than single values²³

Emerging Biomarkers

Procalcitonin (PCT):

Advantages: Higher specificity for bacterial infections
Thresholds: >0.25 ng/mL suggests bacterial infection
Applications: Antibiotic stewardship, monitoring response²⁴

Presepsin:

Characteristics: Earlier rise than PCT or CRP
Utility: Particularly useful in early sepsis
Limitations: Limited availability, cost considerations²⁵

Novel Approaches

Neutrophil CD64:

Advantage: Rapid upregulation in bacterial infections
Timeline: Increases within 1-4 hours
Research Status: Promising but requires validation²⁶

MicroRNA Panels:

Concept: Gene expression signatures of sepsis
Potential: Personalized sepsis recognition
Status: Investigational²⁷

Oyster 🦪

The "Golden Hour" concept in sepsis is actually a continuum. While mortality increases with delays, the greatest benefit occurs within the first 3 hours—hence the "Sepsis-3 Hour Bundle" emphasis.

Screening Tools and Protocols

Electronic Health Record (EHR) Integration

Automated Screening Tools:

EPIC Sepsis Model
TREWS (Targeted Real-time Early Warning System)
Machine learning algorithms²⁸

Advantages:

Continuous monitoring
Reduced alarm fatigue
Early detection

Limitations:

False positive rates
Alert fatigue
System-dependent performance

Modified Early Warning Scores (MEWS)

Components:

Systolic blood pressure
Heart rate
Respiratory rate
Temperature
AVPU score (Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive)²⁹

Advantages:

Simple bedside calculation
Nursing-friendly
Continuous monitoring

National Early Warning Score (NEWS2)

Enhanced Features:

Oxygen saturation emphasis
Supplemental oxygen weighting
Age considerations
Improved sensitivity³⁰

Clinical Pearl 🔹

Combine automated screening with clinical judgment. No screening tool replaces careful bedside assessment and clinical suspicion. Use technology as an aid, not a replacement for clinical acumen.

Rapid Response and Escalation Protocols

The "Sepsis Bundle" Approach

Hour-1 Bundle (Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021):

Measure lactate level
Obtain blood cultures before antibiotics
Administer broad-spectrum antibiotics
Begin rapid administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate ≥4 mmol/L³¹

Code Sepsis Implementation

Activation Criteria:

qSOFA ≥ 2 + suspected infection
Lactate > 4 mmol/L
Systolic BP < 90 mmHg with suspected infection
Physician discretion³²

Team Composition:

Emergency/ICU physician
Critical care nurse
Pharmacist
Respiratory therapist
Laboratory technician

Quality Improvement Metrics

Process Measures:

Time to antibiotic administration
Appropriate cultures obtained
Fluid resuscitation timing
Lactate clearance³³

Outcome Measures:

Hospital mortality
ICU length of stay
Readmission rates
Functional outcomes

Clinical Hack 💡

Implement the "Sepsis Huddle"—a brief team discussion when sepsis is suspected, covering likely source, antibiotic choice, resuscitation strategy, and escalation plan. This improves care coordination and reduces cognitive load.

Special Considerations

1. Resource-Limited Settings

Simplified Screening:

qSOFA as primary screening
Basic vital signs emphasis
Clinical assessment protocols³⁴

Adaptation Strategies:

Point-of-care testing
Simplified treatment algorithms
Community health worker training

2. Pediatric Considerations

Age-Specific Challenges:

Normal vital signs vary by age
Compensated vs. decompensated shock
Limited communication ability³⁵

Pediatric qSOFA (pqSOFA) Modifications:

Age-adjusted vital signs
Capillary refill assessment
Behavioral changes emphasis

3. Emergency Department vs. ICU Recognition

ED-Specific Factors:

High-volume, fast-paced environment
Limited patient history
Undifferentiated presentations³⁶

ICU Considerations:

Baseline organ dysfunction
Multiple comorbidities
Device-related infections
Drug-resistant pathogens³⁷

Oyster 🦪

Healthcare-associated sepsis often presents subtly with device-related clues: unexpected glucose variations (central line infection), new oxygen requirements (pneumonia), or urinary retention (UTI). Think "iatrogenic" when sepsis develops during hospitalization.

Diagnostic Approaches and Workup

Systematic Source Identification

The "SEPSIS" Mnemonic:

Skin/Soft tissue
Endocarditis/Endovascular
Pneumonia/Pulmonary
Sine loco (unknown source)
Intra-abdominal
System-specific (GU, CNS, etc.)³⁸

Culture Strategy

Blood Cultures:

Obtain before antibiotics when possible
Two sets from different sites
Consider central line cultures if present³⁹

Source-Specific Cultures:

Respiratory: Sputum, BAL, tracheal aspirate
Genitourinary: Clean-catch, catheter specimen
Wound: Deep tissue, not surface swab
CSF: If neurological signs present

Advanced Diagnostic Techniques

Rapid Pathogen Detection:

PCR-based platforms (e.g., FilmArray)
MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry
Multiplexed molecular panels⁴⁰

Imaging Considerations:

CT for abdominal sources
Chest imaging for pulmonary infections
Echocardiography for endocarditis
PET/CT for occult sources⁴¹

Clinical Pearl 🔹

The "Rule of 2s" for blood cultures: 2 sets, from 2 different sites, within 2 hours of presentation, before antibiotics when possible. This maximizes diagnostic yield while minimizing delays.

Treatment Implications of Early Recognition

Antibiotic Selection Principles

Empirical Coverage Considerations:

Local resistance patterns
Patient-specific risk factors
Likely source of infection
Severity of presentation⁴²

High-Risk Pathogen Coverage:

MRSA: Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin
Pseudomonas: Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams
ESBL: Carbapenems
Candida: Consider in high-risk patients⁴³

Hemodynamic Management

Fluid Resuscitation:

Initial 30 mL/kg crystalloid
Balanced solutions preferred
Monitor for fluid overload⁴⁴

Vasopressor Selection:

Norepinephrine first-line
Vasopressin as second agent
Avoid dopamine except in selected cases⁴⁵

Source Control

Surgical Considerations:

Drainage of collections
Device removal
Debridement of necrotic tissue
Timing crucial for outcomes⁴⁶

Clinical Hack 💡

Use the "Golden Triangle" approach: Antibiotics (right drug), Resuscitation (right amount), Source Control (right procedure). All three must be optimized for best outcomes.

Quality Improvement and System-Level Interventions

Implementation Science

Successful Program Elements:

Leadership engagement
Multidisciplinary teams
Data-driven feedback
Continuous education⁴⁷

Common Implementation Barriers:

Alert fatigue
Resource constraints
Workflow disruption
Provider resistance

Measurement and Monitoring

Key Performance Indicators:

Time to recognition
Bundle compliance
Mortality reduction
Length of stay⁴⁸

Dashboard Development:

Real-time monitoring
Unit-specific metrics
Provider feedback
Trend analysis

Education and Training

Simulation-Based Training:

High-fidelity scenarios
Team-based approaches
Debriefing emphasis
Skill maintenance⁴⁹

Continuing Medical Education:

Case-based learning
Interactive workshops
Online modules
Peer review sessions

Oyster 🦪

The most successful sepsis programs treat it as a system-wide initiative, not just an ICU problem. Engage everyone from housekeeping (environmental factors) to administration (resource allocation) for comprehensive improvement.

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Applications

Machine Learning Models:

Pattern recognition in vital signs
Integration of multiple data streams
Predictive modeling⁵⁰

Natural Language Processing:

Automated chart review
Symptom extraction
Documentation improvement

Precision Medicine Approaches

Genomic Signatures:

Host response patterns
Personalized treatment selection
Prognostic indicators⁵¹

Metabolomics:

Metabolic fingerprinting
Early detection markers
Treatment response monitoring

Wearable Technology

Continuous Monitoring:

Vital sign tracking
Activity level changes
Sleep pattern disruption⁵²

Early Warning Systems:

Community-based screening
Post-discharge monitoring
Chronic disease integration

Clinical Pearl 🔹

The future of sepsis recognition lies in continuous, multi-parameter monitoring with AI-assisted interpretation. However, clinical judgment and bedside assessment will remain irreplaceable components of excellent patient care.

Conclusions and Key Takeaways

Early recognition of sepsis remains one of the most critical skills in critical care medicine. The evolution to Sepsis-3 criteria has improved specificity but created new challenges in early detection. Success requires:

Systematic Approach: Combine screening tools with clinical judgment
High Index of Suspicion: Particularly in high-risk populations
Recognition of Atypical Presentations: Understand sepsis as "the great masquerader"
Rapid Response Systems: Implement and maintain robust protocols
Continuous Education: Stay current with evolving evidence and technologies

The ultimate goal is not perfect adherence to any single definition or score, but rather the earliest possible recognition of a life-threatening condition that demands immediate intervention. As we advance toward precision medicine and AI-assisted diagnosis, the fundamental principles of careful observation, clinical reasoning, and rapid response remain unchanged.

Final Clinical Hack 💡

When in doubt, treat for sepsis. The risks of overtreatment are generally less than the consequences of delayed recognition and treatment in true sepsis cases.

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.
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644-1655.
Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250-1256.
Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, et al. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock. 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.
Fernando SM, Tran A, Taljaard M, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for mortality in patients with suspected infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(4):266-275.
Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X, et al. Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores for detecting clinical deterioration in infected patients outside the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):906-911.
Norman DC. Fever in the elderly. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(1):148-151.
Riedel S, Melendez JH, An AT, et al. Procalcitonin as a marker for the detection of bacteremia and sepsis in the emergency department. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(2):182-189.
Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775-780.
Gavazzi G, Krause KH. Ageing and infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2(11):659-666.
Kalicinski P, Kaminski A, Drewniak T, et al. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and routine laboratory parameters for predicting clinical deterioration in children with liver disease. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):822.
Young GB, Bolton CF, Archibald YM, et al. The electroencephalogram in sepsis-associated encephalopathy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9(1):145-152.
Hollenberg SM, Singer M. Pathophysiology of sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(6):424-434.
Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(3):356-360.
De Waele JJ, Lipman J, Akova M, et al. Risk factors for target non-attainment during empirical treatment with β-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(9):1340-1351.
Sartelli M, Chichom-Mefire A, Labricciosa FM, et al. The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;12:29.
Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):e56-93.
Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323-333.
Bakker J, Gris P, Coffernils M, et al. Serial blood lactate levels can predict the development of multiple organ failure following septic shock. Am J Surg. 1996;171(2):221-226.
Povoa P, Coelho L, Almeida E, et al. C-reactive protein as a marker of infection in critically ill patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(2):101-108.
Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10(10):CD007498.
Ulla M, Pizzolato E, Lucchiari M, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of presepsin in the management of sepsis in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective study. Crit Care. 2013;17(4):R168.
Streimish IG, Bizzarro MJ, Northrup V, et al. Neutrophil CD64 as a diagnostic marker in neonatal sepsis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012;31(7):777-781.
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.
Calvert JS, Price DA, Chettipally UK, et al. A computational approach to early sepsis detection. Comput Biol Med. 2016;74:69-73.
Subbe CP, Kruger M, Rutherford P, et al. Validation of a modified Early Warning Score in medical admissions. QJM. 2001;94(10):521-526.
Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Meredith P, et al. The ability of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to discriminate patients at risk of early cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, and death. Resuscitation. 2013;84(4):465-470.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063-e1143.
Berger T, Green J, Horeczko T, et al. Shock index and early recognition of sepsis in the emergency department: pilot study. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(2):168-174.
Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 update. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):925-928.
Jacob ST, Lim M, Banura P, et al. Integrating sepsis management recommendations into clinical care guidelines for district hospitals in resource-limited settings: the necessity to augment new guidelines with future research. BMC Med. 2013;11:107.
Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6(1):2-8.
Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E, et al. Prognostic accuracy of Sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department. JAMA. 2017;317(3):301-308.
Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2323-2329.
Gupta S, Sakhuja A, Kumar G, et al. Culture-negative severe sepsis: nationwide trends and outcomes. Chest. 2016;150(6):1251-1259.
Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, et al. A guide to utilization of the microbiology laboratory for diagnosis of infectious diseases: 2018 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(6):e1-e94.
Bauer KA, Perez KK, Forrest GN, et al. Review of rapid diagnostic tests used by antimicrobial stewardship programs. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59 Suppl 3:S134-145.
Berrevoets MA, Kouijzer IJ, Aarntzen EH, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT optimizes treatment in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and is associated with reduced mortality. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(9):1504-1510.
Paul M, Shani V, Muchtar E, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for sepsis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(11):4851-4863.
Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(4):e1-50.
Brown RM, Wang L, Coston TD, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in sepsis: a secondary analysis of the SMART clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(12):1487-1495.
Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al. Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(9):877-887.
Azuhata T, Kinoshita K, Kawano D, et al. Time from admission to initiation of surgery for source control is a critical determinant of survival in patients with gastrointestinal perforation with associated septic shock. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R87.
Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235-2244.
Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, et al. The timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(7):856-863.
Boet S, Bould MD, Fung L, et al. Transfer of learning and patient outcome in simulated crisis resource management: a systematic review. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(6):571-582.
Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O, et al. The Artificial Intelligence Clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1716-1720.
Scicluna BP, van Vught LA, Zwinderman AH, et al. Classification of patients with sepsis according to blood genomic endotype: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(10):816-826.
Hravnak M, Devita MA, Clontz A, et al. Cardiorespiratory instability before and after implementing an integrated monitoring system. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(1):65-72.

Appendices

Appendix A: Quick Reference Cards

Sepsis-3 Criteria Quick Reference

Sepsis: Life-threatening organ dysfunction (SOFA ≥2) + suspected infection
Septic Shock: Sepsis + vasopressor requirement (MAP ≥65) + lactate >2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation
qSOFA: Altered mental status + SBP ≤100 + RR ≥22 (≥2 = high risk)

High-Risk Population Red Flags

Elderly: Falls, confusion, failure to thrive, urinary retention
Immunocompromised: Any fever, subtle changes, unusual pathogens
Postoperative: Unexpected tachycardia, delayed recovery, wound concerns
Cancer patients: Neutropenic fever, central line issues, rapid deterioration

Emergency Interventions Checklist

□ Blood cultures (2 sets, different sites) □ Lactate level □ Broad-spectrum antibiotics (within 1 hour) □ Fluid resuscitation (30 mL/kg if hypotensive or lactate ≥4) □ Source identification and control □ Hemodynamic monitoring □ Serial assessments

Appendix B: Differential Diagnosis Framework

Non-Infectious Sepsis Mimics

Cardiovascular: Acute MI, pulmonary embolism, cardiogenic shock
Neurological: Stroke, seizure, intracranial pressure elevation
Metabolic: DKA, thyroid storm, adrenal crisis
Toxicological: Drug overdose, withdrawal syndromes
Hematological: Transfusion reactions, tumor lysis syndrome
Autoimmune: Systemic lupus erythematosus, vasculitis

Source-Specific Considerations

Pulmonary: Consider fungal, viral, non-infectious pneumonitis
Urinary: Rule out obstruction, sterile pyuria
Abdominal: Inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatitis
CNS: Aseptic meningitis, autoimmune encephalitis
Cardiac: Culture-negative endocarditis, myocarditis

Appendix C: Institution-Specific Adaptation Guide

Customizing Protocols

Local Epidemiology: Adapt empirical antibiotics to resistance patterns
Resource Availability: Modify biomarker use based on laboratory capabilities
Staffing Models: Adjust response teams to available personnel
Technology Integration: Leverage existing EHR and monitoring systems
Quality Metrics: Establish realistic benchmarks for your setting

Implementation Timeline

Phase 1 (Months 1-3): Education and awareness
Phase 2 (Months 4-6): Pilot testing in selected units
Phase 3 (Months 7-9): Hospital-wide rollout
Phase 4 (Months 10-12): Refinement and optimization
Phase 5 (Ongoing): Continuous monitoring and improvement

Glossary of Terms

Dysregulated Host Response: Pathological immune response that causes more harm than the inciting pathogen

Organ Dysfunction: Acute change in SOFA score ≥2 points consequent to infection

Refractory Shock: Shock requiring >0.25 mcg/kg/min norepinephrine equivalent to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg

Cryptogenic Sepsis: Sepsis without identifiable source despite thorough investigation

Sepsis-Associated Encephalopathy: Acute brain dysfunction in sepsis without direct CNS infection

Source Control: Physical intervention to eliminate or control focus of infection

Time-Sensitive: Interventions where delays significantly impact outcomes

Bundle Compliance: Adherence to evidence-based care elements within specified timeframes

Author Contributions and Disclosures

This review synthesizes current evidence and expert opinion in sepsis recognition for educational purposes. The authors have no relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Word Count: Approximately 8,500 words

Thursday, September 18, 2025