Current Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sepsis

A special issue of Life (ISSN 2075-1729). This special issue belongs to the section "Medical Research".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 December 2024 | Viewed by 1988

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Linkou Medical Center, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Interests: sepsis; biomarkers; prediction; sepsis treatment; AI models

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Welcome to our Special Issue on “Current Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sepsis”, a timely exploration into the innovative diagnostic tools and artificial intelligence (AI) models reshaping sepsis management. Sepsis remains a global health crisis that demands rapid and accurate diagnosis to improve patient outcomes significantly. This issue highlights cutting-edge diagnostic technologies, including rapid biomarker assays and portable point-of-care devices, which represent leaps toward earlier detection and intervention. Equally, we delve into the transformative potential of AI and machine learning in predicting sepsis, analyzing vast datasets to unveil patterns and predictions that surpass traditional methods. Our scope extends to novel treatment strategies, from targeted antimicrobial therapies to immune-modulating techniques, showcasing comprehensive advances in combating this complex condition. We invite researchers and practitioners to contribute insights and findings that propel our understanding and capability in diagnosing and treating sepsis, aiming to foster a multidisciplinary dialogue underpinning future breakthroughs in sepsis care.

Dr. Chih-Huang Li
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Life is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • sepsis
  • biomarkers
  • prediction
  • immunotherapy
  • AI model

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

13 pages, 1214 KiB  
Article
Early Mortality Stratification with Serum Albumin and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score at Emergency Department Admission in Septic Shock Patients
by Sang-Min Kim, Seung-Mok Ryoo, Tae-Gun Shin, You-Hwan Jo, Kyuseok Kim, Tae-Ho Lim, Sung-Phil Chung, Sung-Hyuk Choi, Gil-Joon Suh and Won-Young Kim
Life 2024, 14(10), 1257; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14101257 - 2 Oct 2024
Viewed by 816
Abstract
Background: Early risk stratification is crucial due to septic patients’ heterogeneity. Serum albumin level may reflect the severity of sepsis and host status. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic ability of the initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score alone and combined [...] Read more.
Background: Early risk stratification is crucial due to septic patients’ heterogeneity. Serum albumin level may reflect the severity of sepsis and host status. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic ability of the initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score alone and combined with serum albumin levels for predicting 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock. Methods: We conducted an observational study using a prospective, multicenter registry of septic shock patients between October 2015 and May 2022 from 12 emergency departments in the Korean Shock Society and the results were validated by examining those from the septic shock cohort in Asan Medical Center. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare the predictive values of SOFA score alone and SOFA score combined with serum albumin level. Results: Among 5805 septic shock patients, 1529 (26.3%) died within 28 days. Mortality increased stepwise with decreasing serum albumin levels (13.6% in albumin ≥3.5, 20.7% in 3.5–3.0, 29.7% in 3.0–2.5, 44.0% in 2.5–2.0, 56.4% in <2.0). The albumin SOFA score was calculated by adding the initial SOFA score to the 4 points assigned for albumin levels. ROC analysis for predicting 28-day mortality showed that the area under the curve for the albumin SOFA score was 0.71 (95% CI 0.70–0.73), which was significantly higher than that of the initial SOFA score alone (0.68, 95% CI: 0.67–0.69). Conclusions: The combination of the initial SOFA score with albumin can improve prognostic accuracy for patients with septic shock, suggesting the albumin SOFA score may be used as an early mortality stratification tool. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sepsis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 578 KiB  
Article
The Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir Use in COVID-19 Patients with Neutropenia: A Retrospective Cohort Study
by Peng-Huei Liu, Ming-Wei Pan, Yan-Bo Huang, Chip-Jin Ng and Shou-Yen Chen
Life 2024, 14(10), 1252; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14101252 - 1 Oct 2024
Viewed by 729
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic poses severe risks for immunocompromised patients, especially those with neutropenia due to chemotherapy. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir use in COVID-19 patients with neutropenia. Methods: This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) [...] Read more.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic poses severe risks for immunocompromised patients, especially those with neutropenia due to chemotherapy. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir use in COVID-19 patients with neutropenia. Methods: This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 98,763 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of neutropenia. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching. Results: We compared common adverse effects of remdesivir in neutropenic patients before and after a 5-day regimen. A slight decrease in heart rate was observed but lacked clinical significance. There were no significant differences observed in hemoglobin, liver function tests, and blood glucose levels. After propensity score matching of COVID-19 patients with neutropenia according to gender, age, dexamethasone use, oxygen use, MASCC score, and WHO ordinal scale, no significant differences were found in length of stay, intubation rate, or ICU admission rate between the matched patients. Conclusions: Our study found remdesivir to be safe for COVID-19 patients with neutropenia, with no common adverse reactions observed. However, its effectiveness for these patients remains uncertain. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sepsis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop