Calc Function

  • Diagnosis
  • Rule Out
  • Prognosis
  • Formula
  • Treatment
  • Algorithm
  • Disease
    Select...
    Specialty
    Select...
    Chief Complaint
    Select...
    Organ System
    Select...

    SIRS, Sepsis, and Septic Shock Criteria

    Defines the severity of sepsis and septic shock.

    INSTRUCTIONS
    SIRS Criteria (≥2 meets SIRS definition)
    Sepsis Criteria (SIRS + Source of Infection)
    Severe Sepsis Criteria (Organ Dysfunction, Hypotension, or Hypoperfusion)
    Septic Shock Criteria
    Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome Criteria

    This patient does not meet SIRS criteria. For other causes of shock, see the Next Steps section.
    Copy Results
    Dr. Robert A. Balk
    Dr. Robert A. Balk
    From the creator
    Why did you issue the consensus statement on the SIRS Criteria and Septic protocol? Was there a clinical experience that inspired you to update these guidelines for clinicians?
    The American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine convened the first sepsis definitions conference in 1991 to help researchers define a population of severe septic patients who would be suitable for enrollment in clinical trials of new investigational agents that were thought to be able to block the proinflammatory cascade, and thus improve survival of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. To accomplish this goal, the conference participants aimed to use readily available clinical signs, symptoms and basic laboratory studies that would then support a rapid diagnosis. The trade-off for such a sensitive group of parameters that would alert physicians to the early manifestations of severe sepsis and septic shock was a group of criteria that lacked a great deal of specificity. It was also recognized that the same clinical signs, symptoms and laboratory data seen in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock were also present in other populations of critically ill patients with other proinflammatory conditions, such as trauma, burns, pancreatitis, etc. It was therefore decided to define the patients with a documented or highly suspicious infection that results in a systemic inflammatory response as having sepsis. In the ICU, sepsis patients would typically manifest organ dysfunction (severe sepsis) or septic shock, with or without multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
    The second goal of the consensus conference was to facilitate better communication in the literature and scientific communication (including on rounds) which will enhance future comparative efforts among clinical trials and facilitate outcome comparisons of septic populations.
    What pearls, pitfalls and/or tips do you have for users of the SIRS Criteria? Are there cases in which they have been applied, interpreted, or used inappropriately?
    Users of the SIRS - Sepsis criteria need to understand that they are overly sensitive to identify potential patients as early as possible, but the criteria lack specificity. The 2001 international sepsis definition conference attempted to enhance the utility and specificity of the definition by including additional signs, symptoms, laboratory data, biomarkers and physiologic parameters. Unfortunately, we are still awaiting the perfect clinical definition that has both high sensitivity and specificity for severe sepsis and septic shock.
    For example, if you believe the patient has an infection AND meets the SIRS criteria, then the patient may be septic. Infection is likely its most useful application. The score is designed to be sensitive, but not specific. It's meant to help with early diagnosis. SIRS was not designed to be algorithmic, such as: if you have a score of X, you must do Y. Rather, it's a table of points to see whether or not the patient has any of these criteria. You then apply that result to the specific clinical scenario.
    What recommendations do you have for health care providers once they have applied the SIRS Criteria? Are there any adjustments or updates you would make to the criteria given recent changes in medicine?
    Investigators are continuing to refine the SIRS - Sepsis criteria and make them more clinically useful. The current approach has involved the use of various biomarkers to facilitate the identification of patients with a high likelihood of bacterial infection and/or high risk for morbidity and mortality. Some of the current biomarkers under evaluation include procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, proadrenalmodulin, N-terminal BNP and lactate.
    Other comments? Any new research or papers on this topic in the pipeline?
    The future will likely include significant refinements in the SIRS criteria using biomarkers and PCR or nanotechnology to improve the specificity of the diagnosis and provide the information in a more rapid fashion.
    About the creator

    Robert A. Balk, MD, is a professor and practicing physician in pulmonology, internal medicine and critical care at Rush University Medical Center. His research interests include septic shock, acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated pneumonia.

    Content Contributors
    • Megan Soliman, MD, MSC
    • Kamal Medlej, MD
    About the Creator
    Dr. Robert A. Balk
    Dr. Robert A. Balk
    Also from MDCalc...
    Content Contributors
    • Megan Soliman, MD, MSC
    • Kamal Medlej, MD