Hi, I am Mervyn Singer from UK. There's been a lot of hype in the literature lately—claims that sepsis incidence is rising, but at the same time, mortality is declining. That sounds like good news, but it's worth taking a closer look. In my talk, I explored the impact of the Sepsis-3 definitions, which were introduced in February 2016. Now, with more than 20 months of clinical experience and research using these new criteria, we're starting to see how they've influenced clinical practice, research design, and epidemiological reporting. One of the key drivers of change—particularly in the United States—is incentivization. There's a financial motivation to code patients as having sepsis rather than, say, pneumonia, because sepsis often brings higher reimbursement rates. This naturally has implications for how cases are classified and reported. But to me, the most important contribution of Sepsis-3 lies in the consistency it provides. Finally, we have a shared language. Before Sepsis-3, the definitions were vague and inconsistent. Terms like "severe sepsis" or "septic shock" were often interpreted differently across institutions and even individual clinicians. This lack of standardization led to wide variation in reported incidence and mortality—making it difficult to compare data or draw meaningful conclusions. Now, with the newer criteria, we're seeing much greater homogeneity. Mortality rates reported from different countries are strikingly similar, which suggests we're finally capturing more accurate and comparable data. That's a solid foundation from which to build future research and clinical strategies.

Ver todos los episodios