Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 240–242 | Cite as

Future of the ICU: finding treatable needles in the data haystack

  • Lieuwe D. J. Bos
  • Elie Azoulay
  • Ignacio Martin-LoechesEmail author
What's New in Intensive Care

Sepsis in the ICU of the future

The identification of subtypes of disease with distinct clinical and biological features, divergent natural histories, and differential treatment responses has had a major impact on a variety of medical domains, ranging from oncology to infectious diseases. Nowadays, sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection [1]. In this focus editorial we break down the need for an individualization of treatment into three axes: the infection (i.e., the pathogen), the host response and organ dysfunction (Fig. 1). The key message is that patients fulfilling the sepsis criteria are very dissimilar and that this heterogeneity results in non-superiority for almost every tested intervention. In the ICU of the future, sepsis will be classified based on treatable traits in these three dimensions. The biggest challenge of the coming decade is to make sense of huge datasets and to integrate epidemiological and...


  1. 1.
    Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C et al (2016) The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA J Am Med Assoc 315:801–810. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W (2017) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock. Springer, Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marshall JC (2014) Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed? Trends Mol Med 20:195–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hotchkiss RS, Coopersmith CM, McDunn JE et al (2009) The sepsis seesaw: tilting toward immunosuppression. Nat Med. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davenport EE, Burnham KL, Radhakrishnan J et al (2016) Genomic landscape of the individual host response and outcomes in sepsis: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 4:259–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scicluna BP, van Vught LA, Zwinderman AH et al (2017) Classification of patients with sepsis according to blood genomic endotype: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antcliffe DB, Burnham KL, Al-Beidh F et al (2018) Transcriptomic signatures in sepsis and a differential response to steroids: from the VANISH randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pickkers P, Kox M (2017) Towards precision medicine for sepsis patients. Crit Care 21:2016–2018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harrison AM, Gajic O, Pickering BW et al (2016) Development and implementation of sepsis alert systems. Clin Chest Med 37:219–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Komorowski M, Celi LA, Badawi O et al (2018) The artificial intelligence clinician learns optimal treatment strategies for sepsis in intensive care. Nat Med. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knox DB, Lanspa MJ, Kuttler KG et al (2015) Phenotypic clusters within sepsis-associated multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Intensive Care Med 41:814–822. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ESICM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St James’s HospitalDublinIreland
  2. 2.St Louis HospitalParisFrance
  3. 3.Pulmonary Intensive Care UnitRespiratory Institute, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO)St. James’s HospitalDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations