Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Clifford S. Deutschman is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Clifford S. Deutschman.


JAMA | 2016

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Mervyn Singer; Clifford S. Deutschman; Christopher W. Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R. Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M. Coopersmith; Richard S. Hotchkiss; Mitchell M. Levy; John Marshall; Greg S. Martin; Steven M. Opal; Gordon D. Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean Louis Vincent; Derek C. Angus

IMPORTANCE Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. OBJECTIVE To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. PROCESS A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). KEY FINDINGS FROM EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. RECOMMENDATIONS Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.


JAMA | 2016

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)

Manu Shankar-Hari; Gary Phillips; Mitchell L. Levy; Christopher W. Seymour; Vincent Liu; Clifford S. Deutschman; Derek C. Angus; Gordon D. Rubenfeld; Mervyn Singer

IMPORTANCE Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition. OBJECTIVE To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria. RESULTS The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.


JAMA | 2016

Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock

Manu Shankar Hari; Gary Phillips; Mitchell L. Levy; Christopher W. Seymour; Vincent Liu; Clifford S. Deutschman; Derek C. Angus; Gordon D. Rubenfeld; Mervyn Singer

IMPORTANCE Septic shock currently refers to a state of acute circulatory failure associated with infection. Emerging biological insights and reported variation in epidemiology challenge the validity of this definition. OBJECTIVE To develop a new definition and clinical criteria for identifying septic shock in adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine convened a task force (19 participants) to revise current sepsis/septic shock definitions. Three sets of studies were conducted: (1) a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in adults published between January 1, 1992, and December 25, 2015, to determine clinical criteria currently reported to identify septic shock and inform the Delphi process; (2) a Delphi study among the task force comprising 3 surveys and discussions of results from the systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies to achieve consensus on a new septic shock definition and clinical criteria; and (3) cohort studies to test variables identified by the Delphi process using Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) (2005-2010; n = 28,150), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) (2010-2012; n = 1,309,025), and Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) (2009-2013; n = 1,847,165) electronic health record (EHR) data sets. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Evidence for and agreement on septic shock definitions and criteria. RESULTS The systematic review identified 44 studies reporting septic shock outcomes (total of 166,479 patients) from a total of 92 sepsis epidemiology studies reporting different cutoffs and combinations for blood pressure (BP), fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, serum lactate level, and base deficit to identify septic shock. The septic shock-associated crude mortality was 46.5% (95% CI, 42.7%-50.3%), with significant between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 99.5%; τ2 = 182.5; P < .001). The Delphi process identified hypotension, serum lactate level, and vasopressor therapy as variables to test using cohort studies. Based on these 3 variables alone or in combination, 6 patient groups were generated. Examination of the SSC database demonstrated that the patient group requiring vasopressors to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) after fluid resuscitation had a significantly higher mortality (42.3% [95% CI, 41.2%-43.3%]) in risk-adjusted comparisons with the other 5 groups derived using either serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L alone or combinations of hypotension, vasopressors, and serum lactate level 2 mmol/L or lower. These findings were validated in the UPMC and KPNC data sets. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Based on a consensus process using results from a systematic review, surveys, and cohort studies, septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than sepsis alone. Adult patients with septic shock can be identified using the clinical criteria of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean BP 65 mm Hg or greater and having a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L after adequate fluid resuscitation.


Critical Care | 2015

Judging quality of current septic shock definitions and criteria

Manu Shankar-Hari; Guido Bertolini; Frank M. Brunkhorst; Rinaldo Bellomo; Djillali Annane; Clifford S. Deutschman; Mervyn Singer

Septic shock definitions are being revisited. We assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity characteristics of the current definitions and criteria of septic shock. Septic shock is conceptualised as cardiovascular dysfunction, tissue perfusion and cellular abnormalities caused by infection. Currently, for feasibility, septic shock is identified at the bedside by using either hypotension or a proxy for tissue perfusion/cellular abnormalities (e.g., hyperlactatemia). We propose that concurrent presence of cardiovascular dysfunction and perfusion/cellular abnormalities could improve validity of septic shock diagnosis, as we are more likely to identify a patient population with all elements of the illness concept. This epidemiological refinement should not affect clinical care and may aid study design to identify illness-specific biomarkers and interventions.


Intensive Care Medicine | 2018

Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock

Craig M. Coopersmith; Daniel De Backer; Clifford S. Deutschman; Ricard Ferrer; Ishaq Lat; Flávia Ribeiro Machado; Greg S. Martin; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Mark E. Nunnally; Massimo Antonelli; Laura Evans; Judith Hellman; Sameer Jog; Jozef Kesecioglu; Mitchell M. Levy; Andrew Rhodes

ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.


Chest | 2014

Choosing Wisely in Critical Care: Maximizing Value in the ICU

Derek C. Angus; Clifford S. Deutschman; Jesse B Hall; Kevin C. Wilson; Cindy L. Munro; Nicholas S. Hill

Overuse of medical tests and treatments wastes healthcare resources and leads to unnecessary complications, while underuse results in delayed or missed diagnoses and treatment opportunities. 1 Such problems are well recognized, and there have been multiple attempts to correct inappropriate diagnostic testing and treatment over the past several decades. 2 However, sustainable solutions have proven to be elusive. 3


JAMA | 2016

Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Christopher W. Seymour; Vincent Liu; Theodore J. Iwashyna; Frank M. Brunkhorst; Thomas D. Rea; André Scherag; Gordon D. Rubenfeld; Jeremy M. Kahn; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer; Clifford S. Deutschman; Gabriel J. Escobar; Derek C. Angus


Intensive Care Medicine | 2015

Do we need a new definition of sepsis

Manu Shankar-Hari; Clifford S. Deutschman; Mervyn Singer


Archive | 2010

Evidence-based practice of critical care

Clifford S. Deutschman; Patrick J. Neligan


Archive | 2010

Perioperative Acid-Base Balance

Patrick J. Neligan; Clifford S. Deutschman

Collaboration


Dive into the Clifford S. Deutschman's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mervyn Singer

University College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Derek C. Angus

University of Pittsburgh

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Manu Shankar-Hari

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gordon D. Rubenfeld

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Judith Hellman

University of California

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge