Background: Sepsis/septic shock is a life-threatening and time-dependent condition that requires timely management to reduce mortality. This review aims to update physicians with regard to the main pillars of treatment for this insidious condition. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched from inception with special attention paid to November 2021–January 2023. Results: The management of sepsis/septic shock is challenging and involves different pathophysiological aspects, encompassing empirical antimicrobial treatment (which is promptly administered after microbial tests), fluid (crystalloids) replacement (to be established according to fluid tolerance and fluid responsiveness), and vasoactive agents (e.g., norepinephrine (NE)), which are employed to maintain mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg and reduce the risk of fluid overload. In cases of refractory shock, vasopressin (rather than epinephrine) should be combined with NE to reach an acceptable level of pressure control. If mechanical ventilation is indicated, the tidal volume should be reduced from 10 to 6 mL/kg. Heparin is administered to prevent venous thromboembolism, and glycemic control is recommended. The efficacy of other treatments (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors, sodium bicarbonate, etc.) is largely debated, and such treatments might be used on a case-to-case basis. Conclusions: The management of sepsis/septic shock has significantly progressed in the last few years. Improving knowledge of the main therapeutic cornerstones of this challenging condition is crucial to achieve better patient outcomes.

Background: Since 2019, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing a rapidly spreading pandemic. The present study aims to compare a modified quick SOFA (MqSOFA) score with the NEWS-2 score to predict in-hospital mortality (IHM), 30-days mortality and recovery setting. Methods: All patients admitted from March to October 2020 to the Emergency Department of St. Anna Hospital, Ferrara, Italy with clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were retrospectively included in this single-centre study and evaluated with the MqSOFA and NEWS-2 scores. Statistical and logistic regression analyses were applied to our database. Results: A total of 3359 individual records were retrieved. Among them, 2716 patients were excluded because of a negative nasopharyngeal swab and 206 for lacking data; thus, 437 patients were eligible. The data showed that the MqSOFA and NEWS-2 scores equally predicted IHM (p < 0.001) and 30-days mortality (p < 0.001). Higher incidences of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular accidents, dementia, chronic kidney disease and cancer were found in the deceased vs. survived group. Conclusions: In this study we confirmed that the MqSOFA score was non-inferior to the NEWS-2 score in predicting IHM and 30-days mortality. Furthermore, the MqSOFA score was easier to use than NEWS-2 and is more suitable for emergency settings. Neither the NEWS-2 nor the MqSOFA scores were able to predict the recovery setting.

Plasmatic presepsin (PSP) is a novel biomarker reported to be useful for sepsis diagnosis and prognosis. During the pandemic, only few studies highlighted a possible correlation between PSP and COVID-19 severity, but results remain inconsistent. The present study aims to establish the correlation between PSP and COVID-19 severity. English-language papers assessing a correlation between COVID-19 and PSP from MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, MeSH, LitCovid NLM, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and the World Health Organization (WHO) website, published from January 2020 were considered with no publication date limitations. Two independent reviewers performed data abstraction and quality assessment, and one reviewer resolved inconsistencies. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325971).Fifteen articles met our eligibility criteria. The aggregate study population included 1373 COVID-19 patients who had undergone a PSP assessment. The random-effect meta-analysis was performed in 7 out of 15 selected studies, considering only those reporting the mean PSP levels in low- and high-severity cases (n = 707).The results showed that the pooled mean difference of PSP levels between high- and low-severity COVID-19 patients was 441.70 pg/ml (95%CI: 150.40–732.99 pg/ml).Our data show that presepsin is a promising biomarker that can express COVID-19 severity.

Purpose Sepsis is a life-threating organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Being a time-dependent condition, the present study aims to compare a recently established score, i.e., modified quick SOFA (MqSOFA), with other existing tools commonly applied to predict in-hospital mortality. Methods All cases of sepsis and septic shock consecutively observed at St. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy, from January 2017 to December 2018 were included in this study. Each patient was evaluated with MqSOFA, lactate assay, NEWS and qSOFA. Accurate statistical and logistic regression analyses were applied to our database. Results A total of 1001 consecutive patients with sepsis/septic shock were retrieved. Among them, 444 were excluded for incomplete details about vital parameters; thus, 556 patients were eligible for the study. Data analysis showed that MqSOFA, NEWS and lactate assay provided a better predictive ability than qSOFA in terms of in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). Aetiology-based stratification in 5 subgroups demonstrated the superiority of NEWS vs. other tools in predicting fatal outcomes (p = 0.030 respiratory, p = 0.036 urinary, p = 0.044 abdominal, p = 0.047 miscellaneous and p = 0.041 for indeterminate causes). After Bonferroni’s correction, MqSOFA was superior to qSOFA over respiratory (p < 0.001) and urinary (p < 0.001) aetiologies. Age was an independent factor for negative outcomes (p < 0.001). Conclusions MqSOFA, NEWS and lactate assay better predicted in-hospital mortality compared to qSOFA. Since sepsis needs a time-dependent assessment, an easier and non-invasive score, i.e., MqSOFA, could be used to establish patients’ outcome in the emergency setting.

Background: Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic (COVID-19) has caused millions of deaths worldwide and is the second most serious pandemic after the Spanish flu. Despite SARS-CoV-2 infection having a dominant effect on morbidity and life-threatening outcomes, the role of bacterial co-infection in patients with COVID-19 is poorly understood. The present study aimed to verify the existence of bacterial co-infections and their possible role as cofactors worsening COVID-19-related clinical manifestations. Methods: All patients with suspected SARS-CoV-infection, hospitalised in COVID-19 wards at the Sant’Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, were retrospectively included in this single-centre study and their specific bacterial serologies were assessed. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: A total of 1204 individual records were retrieved. Among them, 959 were excluded because of a negative nasopharyngeal swab or missing data; of the eligible 245 patients, 51 were co-infected. Compared to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection alone, those with Chlamydia pneumoniae or Mycoplasma pneumoniae co-infections had worse respiratory/radiological features and more intensive care unit admissions. However, the co-infection did not result in a higher mortality rate. Conclusions: The present study, comparing clinical, laboratory and radiological findings between patients with COVID-19 vs. those with co-infections (C. pneumoniae or M. pneumoniae) showed that, on admission, these features were worse in co-infected patients, although the mortality rate did not differ between the two groups.