Maternal infections are an important cause of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity. We report the main findings of the WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study, which aimed to assess the frequency of maternal infections in health facilities, according to maternal characteristics and outcomes, and coverage of core practices for early identification and management.We did a facility-based, prospective, 1-week inception cohort study in 713 health facilities providing obstetric, midwifery, or abortion care, or where women could be admitted because of complications of pregnancy, childbirth, post-partum, or post-abortion, in 52 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). We obtained data from hospital records for all pregnant or recently pregnant women hospitalised with suspected or confirmed infection. We calculated ratios of infection and infection-related severe maternal outcomes (ie, death or near-miss) per 1000 livebirths and the proportion of intrahospital fatalities across country income groups, as well as the distribution of demographic, obstetric, clinical characteristics and outcomes, and coverage of a set of core practices for identification and management across infection severity groups.Between Nov 28, 2017, and Dec 4, 2017, of 2965 women assessed for eligibility, 2850 pregnant or recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed infection were included. 70·4 (95% CI 67·7-73·1) hospitalised women per 1000 livebirths had a maternal infection, and 10·9 (9·8-12·0) women per 1000 livebirths presented with infection-related (underlying or contributing cause) severe maternal outcomes. Highest ratios were observed in LMICs and the lowest in HICs. The proportion of intrahospital fatalities was 6·8% among women with severe maternal outcomes, with the highest proportion in low-income countries. Infection-related maternal deaths represented more than half of the intrahospital deaths. Around two-thirds (63·9%, n=1821) of the women had a complete set of vital signs recorded, or received antimicrobials the day of suspicion or diagnosis of the infection (70·2%, n=1875), without marked differences across severity groups.The frequency of maternal infections requiring management in health facilities is high. Our results suggest that contribution of direct (obstetric) and indirect (non-obstetric) infections to overall maternal deaths is greater than previously thought. Improvement of early identification is urgently needed, as well as prompt management of women with infections in health facilities by implementing effective evidence-based practices.UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO, Merck for Mothers, and United States Agency for International Development.Copyright © 2020 This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

To evaluate the performance characteristics of existing screening tools for the prediction of sepsis during antepartum and postpartum readmissions.This was a case-control study using electronic health record data obtained between 2016 and 2021 from 67 hospitals for antepartum sepsis admissions and 71 hospitals for postpartum readmissions up to 42 days. Patients in the sepsis case group were matched in a 1:4 ratio to a comparison cohort of patients without sepsis admitted antepartum or postpartum. The following screening criteria were evaluated: the CMQCC (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative) initial sepsis screen, the non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome), the MEWC (Maternal Early Warning Criteria), UKOSS (United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System) obstetric SIRS, and the MEWT (Maternal Early Warning Trigger Tool). Time periods were divided into early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks of gestation), more than 20 weeks of gestation, early postpartum (less than 3 days postpartum), and late postpartum through 42 days. False-positive screening rates, C-statistics, sensitivity, and specificity were reported for each overall screening tool and each individual criterion.We identified 525 patients with sepsis during an antepartum hospitalization and 728 patients with sepsis during a postpartum readmission. For early pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted SIRS had the highest C-statistics (0.78 and 0.83, respectively). For more than 20 weeks of gestation and less than 3 days postpartum, the pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC and UKOSS) had the highest C-statistics (0.87-0.94). The MEWC maintained the highest sensitivity rates during all time periods (81.9-94.4%) but also had the highest false-positive rates (30.4-63.9%). The pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools (CMQCC, UKOSS) had the lowest false-positive rates in all time periods (3.9-10.1%). All tools had the lowest C-statistics in the periods of less than 20 weeks of gestation and more than 3 days postpartum.For admissions early in pregnancy and more than 3 days postpartum, non-pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tools performed better than pregnancy-adjusted tools. From 20 weeks of gestation through up to 3 days postpartum, using a pregnancy-adjusted sepsis screening tool increased sensitivity and minimized false-positive rates. The overall false-positive rate remained high.Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Approximately 20% to 30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis. While fluid therapy typically begins in the emergency department, intravenous fluids in the intensive care unit are an essential component of therapy for sepsis.For patients with sepsis, intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications. Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as 4 overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis: resuscitation (rapid fluid administered to restore perfusion); optimization (the risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion are evaluated); stabilization (fluid therapy is used only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness); and evacuation (excess fluid accumulated during treatment of critical illness is eliminated). Among 3723 patients with sepsis who received 1 to 2 L of fluid, 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported that goal-directed therapy administering fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8 to 12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 to 90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs 25.4%; P = .68). Among 1563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid, an RCT reported that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs 14.9%; P = .61). Another RCT reported that among 1554 patients in the intensive care unit with septic shock treated with at least 1 L of fluid compared with more liberal fluid administration, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality (42.3% vs 42.1%; P = .96). An RCT of 1000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase reported that limiting fluid administration and administering diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs 12.1 days; P < .001), and it reported that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy compared with saline (7.0% vs 5.8%; P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.Fluids are an important component of treating patients who are critically ill with sepsis. Although optimal fluid management in patients with sepsis remains uncertain, clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of fluid administration in each phase of critical illness, avoid use of hydroxyethyl starch, and facilitate fluid removal for patients recovering from acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. Sepsis complicates an estimated 1 in 1,000 pregnancies and is responsible for 24% of in-hospital maternal deaths. Because most cases occur outside of the hospital, it is crucial to educate patients about warning signs to seek early medical care and for clinicians to engage in critical listening and evaluation of patient concerns. In the hospital, screening patients for vital sign aberrancy, followed by bedside and laboratory evaluation for signs of end-organ injury, prompt antibiotic therapy, and restoration of perfusion (through fluid resuscitation and vasopressor administration), is critical for optimal outcomes. Long-term sequelae are common and include psychological sequelae, cognitive dysfunction, and weakness. Screening for these long-term effects and referrals for treatment are key to patient recovery.

To assess whether initial fluid resuscitation with lactated Ringer’s solution compared with 0.9% saline is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension.

Maternal sepsis rates are increasing and now rank as the second leading cause of preventable maternal mortality. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has responded to this trend through the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) initiative, which aims to improve sepsis care and will be integrated into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program by 2026. This article provides an update on maternal sepsis definitions, screening, and management in line with recent CMS guidance. A comprehensive literature search was conducted with PubMed, Google Scholar, Scholar GPT, and Google to identify national and international guidelines on maternal sepsis. In addition, 2 focused literature searches were performed: one targeting maternal sepsis review articles and the other exploring early warning tools for maternal sepsis. Recognizing that maternal sepsis occurs in the outpatient and inpatient settings, we emphasize the need for early detection in both settings. We introduce a 3-stage screening and diagnostic framework along with a care process model for the initial management of maternal sepsis, both grounded in best practices and designed to align with CMS guidance. In addition, alternative regimens for treating peripartum infections are suggested in light of the recent Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute updates on aminoglycosides. Strategies for managing β-lactam allergies are also explored, offering tailored treatment regimens for patients with varying allergic reactions. The article concludes by highlighting the long-term impact of sepsis and the critical need for comprehensive postdischarge follow-up to ensure optimal recovery.Copyright © 2025 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The Society of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) published its first sepsis in pregnancy and the postpartum period guideline in 2017 (Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 57, 2017, 540). In the intervening 6 years, maternal mortality from sepsis has remained static.

Selecting an appropriate target population is essential to maximize survival benefits of anticoagulant therapy against sepsis. Our meta-analysis of three populations with sepsis and nationwide observational study in Japan showed that anticoagulants improved mortality only in sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) but not in non-DIC. This divergent effect was physiologically explained by host-protective immune responses of local thrombosis, which are mandatory in the early stage of sepsis. Meanwhile, the lack of definitive evidence for survival benefit provided by several trials of sepsis-induced DIC indicated that this condition was probably not the best target of anticoagulants. Our multicenter cohort study including only patients with sepsis-induced DIC showed a survival benefit from recombinant thrombomodulin only in patients with high disease severity. Thus, we believe that the population with sepsis and DIC and high disease severity is the optimal target for anticoagulant therapy. Anticoagulant therapy without appropriate target selection should be avoided because of the increased risk of bleeding with no survival benefit.© 2018 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.