Dr. Talan is professor of medicine in residence (emeritus) at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and chairman emeritus of the department of emergency medicine and faculty in the division of infectious diseases at Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 37 – No 03 – March 2018Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page
5 Responses to “Opinion: How the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Got Almost Everything Wrong”
March 29, 2018
Mike WardI do not see any listed references?
April 6, 2018
KevinWhere are the references cited?
April 7, 2018
Alex LimkakengDon’t entirely disagree with Dr. Talan on certain examples of overzealousness (or worse) of the SSC (in the case of Xigris, for example), however, 2 caveats: the PROCESS trial used the exact same enrollment criteria as the Rivers Trial, yet had a much lower rate of mortality in the control arm. Therefore the general trend for more liberal coding of sepsis cannot entirely explain the difference.
Second, I think it’s unfair to critique a guideline for being wrong in light of the subsequent new knowledge that accrues over 10 years. Like all guidelines, SSC represented the best available evidence and expert opinion at the time. That is the nature of all science, and the SSC should be credited with raising awareness about sepsis as an emergency condition and focusing researchers on where the gaps in evidence existed such that it was possible to make new recommendations. They should also be lauded for their inclusion of emergency physician researchers.
April 8, 2018
David CassidyReferences?
April 9, 2018
Dawn Antoline-WangSorry, the missing references have been added.