Dataset Information

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study.

Results

Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00-1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h.

Conclusions

qSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions.

SUBMITTER: Li A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10804657 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

Li Andrew A Ling Lowell L Qin Hanyu H Arabi Yaseen M YM Myatra Sheila Nainan SN Egi Moritoki M Kim Je Hyeong JH Nor Mohd Basri Mat MBM Son Do Ngoc DN Fang Wen-Feng WF Wahyuprajitno Bambang B Hashmi Madiha M Faruq Mohammad Omar MO Patjanasoontorn Boonsong B Al Bahrani Maher Jaffer MJ Shrestha Babu Raja BR Shrestha Ujma U Nafees Khalid Mahmood Khan KMK Sann Kyi Kyi KK Palo Jose Emmanuel M JEM Mendsaikhan Naranpurev N Konkayev Aidos A Detleuxay Khamsay K Chan Yiong Huak YH Du Bin B Divatia Jigeeshu Vasishtha JV Koh Younsuck Y Phua Jason J

Critical care (London, England) 20240123 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 38263076

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has not been well-evaluated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveTo assess the association of qSOFA with excess hospital death among patients with suspected infection in LMICs and to compare qSOFA with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.Design, settings, and participantsRetrospective secondary analysis of 8 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial from 2003 to 2017. This study included 6569 hospitalized adults with suspected infection in emergency departments, inpatient wards, and intensive care units of 17 hospitals in 10 LMICs across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas.ExposuresLow (0), moderate (1), or high (≥2) qSOFA score (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) or SIRS criteria (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) within 24 hours of presentation to study hospital.Main outcomes and measuresPredictive validity (measured as incremental hospital mortality beyond that predicted by baseline risk factors, as a marker of sepsis or analogous severe infectious course) of the qSOFA score (primary) and SIRS criteria (secondary).ResultsThe cohorts were diverse in enrollment criteria, demographics (median ages, 29-54 years; males range, 36%-76%), HIV prevalence (range, 2%-43%), cause of infection, and hospital mortality (range, 1%-39%). Among 6218 patients with nonmissing outcome status in the combined cohort, 643 (10%) died. Compared with a low or moderate score, a high qSOFA score was associated with increased risk of death overall (19% vs 6%; difference, 13% [95% CI, 11%-14%]; odds ratio, 3.6 [95% CI, 3.0-4.2]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 8 of 9 cohorts). Compared with a low qSOFA score, a moderate qSOFA score was also associated with increased risk of death overall (8% vs 3%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 4%-6%]; odds ratio, 2.8 [95% CI, 2.0-3.9]), but not in every cohort (P < .05 in 2 of 7 cohorts). High, vs low or moderate, SIRS criteria were associated with a smaller increase in risk of death overall (13% vs 8%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 3%-6%]; odds ratio, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.4-2.0]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 4 of 9 cohorts). qSOFA discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.68-0.72]) was superior to that of both the baseline model (AUROC, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.53-0.58; P < .001) and SIRS (AUROC, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.57-0.62]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceWhen assessed among hospitalized adults with suspected infection in 9 LMIC cohorts, the qSOFA score identified infected patients at risk of death beyond that explained by baseline factors. However, the predictive validity varied among cohorts and settings, and further research is needed to better understand potential generalizability.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether adding lactate to the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) improves the prediction of mortality in adult hospital patients, compared with qSOFA alone.DesignSystematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL and Open Grey databases were searched in November 2020.Eligibility criteriaOriginal research studies published after 2016 comparing qSOFA in combination with lactate (LqSOFA) with qSOFA alone in adult patients with sepsis in hospital. The language was restricted to English.Data extraction and synthesisTitle and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Extracted data were collected into tables and diagnostic test accuracy was compared between the two tests.ResultsWe identified 1621 studies, of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. Overall, there was a low risk of bias across all studies. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for qSOFA was improved by the addition of lactate in 9 of the 10 studies reporting it. Sensitivity was increased in three of seven studies that reported it. Specificity was increased in four of seven studies that reported it. Of the six studies set exclusively within the emergency department, five published AUROCs, all of which reported an increase following the addition of lactate. Sensitivity and specificity results varied throughout the included studies. Due to insufficient data and heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.ConclusionsLqSOFA is an effective tool for identifying mortality risk both in adult inpatients with sepsis and those in the emergency department. LqSOFA increases AUROC over qSOFA alone, particularly within the emergency department. However, further original research is required to provide a stronger base of evidence in lactate measurement timing, as well as prospective trials to strengthen evidence and reduce bias.Prospero registration numberCRD42020207648.

Project description:Background and importanceSepsis is a common and potentially lethal syndrome, and early recognition is critical to prevent deterioration. Yet, currently available scores to facilitate recognition of sepsis lack prognostic accuracy.ObjectiveTo identify the optimal time-point to determine NEWS, qSOFA and SIRS for the prediction of clinical deterioration in early sepsis and to determine whether the change in these scores over time improves their prognostic accuracy.DesignPost hoc analysis of prospectively collected data.Settings and participantsThis study was performed in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Adult medical patients with (potential) sepsis were included.Outcome measures and analysisThe primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 72 h after admission, defined as organ failure development, the composite outcome of ICU-admission and death. Secondary outcomes were the composite of ICU-admission/death and a rise in SOFA at least 2. Scores were calculated at the ED with 30-min intervals. ROC analyses were constructed to compare the prognostic accuracy of the scores.ResultsIn total, 1750 patients were included, of which 360 (20.6%) deteriorated and 79 (4.5%) went to the ICU or died within 72 h. The NEWS at triage (AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.65) had a higher accuracy than qSOFA (AUC, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) and SIRS (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) for predicting deterioration. The AUC of the NEWS at 1 h (0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69) and 150 min after triage (0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68) was higher than the AUC of the NEWS at triage. The qSOFA had the highest AUC at 90 min after triage (0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.65), whereas the SIRS had the highest AUC at 60 min after triage (0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63); both are not significantly different from triage. The NEWS had a better accuracy to predict ICU-admission/death <72 h compared with qSOFA (AUC difference, 0.092) and SIRS (AUC difference, 0.137). No differences were found for the prediction of a rise in SOFA at least 2 within 72 h between the scores. Patients with the largest improvement in any of the scores were more prone to deteriorate.ConclusionNEWS had a higher prognostic accuracy to predict deterioration compared with SIRS and qSOFA; the highest accuracy was reached at 1 h after triage.

Project description:BackgroundThe simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam.MethodsWe did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models.ResultsOf 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671).ConclusionIn our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings.Clinical trial registrationClinical trials registry-India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Project description:BackgroundThe usefulness of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in providing bedside criteria for early prediction of poor outcomes in patients with suspected infection remains controversial. We investigated the prognostic performance of a positive qSOFA score outside the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were pooled on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic OR. Overall test performance was summarized using a hierarchical summary ROC and the AUC. Meta-regression analysis was used to identify potential sources of bias.ResultsWe identified 23 studies with a total of 146,551 patients. When predicting in-hospital mortality in our meta-analysis, we identified pooled sensitivities of 0.51 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.86 for positive SIRS criteria, as well as pooled specificities of 0.83 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.29 for positive SIRS criteria. Discrimination for in-hospital mortality had similar AUCs between the two tools (0.74 vs. 0.71; P = 0.816). Using meta-regression analysis, an overall mortality rate ≥ 10% and timing of qSOFA score measurement could be significant sources of heterogeneity. For predicting acute organ dysfunction, although the AUC for a positive qSOFA score was higher than that for positive SIRS criteria (0.87 vs. 0.76; P < 0.001), the pooled sensitivity of positive qSOFA score was very low (0.47). In addition, a positive qSOFA score tended to be inferior to positive SIRS criteria in predicting ICU admission (0.63 vs. 0.78; P = 0.121).ConclusionsA positive qSOFA score had high specificity outside the ICU in early detection of in-hospital mortality, acute organ dysfunction, and ICU admission, but low sensitivity may have limitations as a predictive tool for adverse outcomes. Because between-study heterogeneity was highly represented among the studies, our results should be interpreted with caution.

Project description:We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether the newly introduced quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score could predict sepsis outcomes and compared its performance to systematic inflammatory response syndrome, the previously widely used screening criteria for sepsis.Data sourcesWe searched multiple electronic databases including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (up to March 1, 2019) that evaluated quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or both (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42018103327).Study selectionStudies were included if the outcome was mortality, organ dysfunction, admission to ICU, ventilatory support, or prolonged ICU stay and if prediction performance was reported as either area under the curve, odds ratio, sensitivity, or specificity.Data extractionThe criterion validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were assessed by measuring its predictive validity for primary (mortality) and secondary outcomes in pooled metrics as mentioned. The data were analyzed using random effects model, and heterogeneity was explored using prespecified subgroups analyses.Data synthesisWe screened 1,340 studies, of which 121 studies (including data for 1,716,017 individuals) were analyzed. For mortality prediction, the pooled area under the curve was higher for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.702; 95% CI, 0.685-0.718; I 2 = 99.41%; p < 0.001) than for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (0.607; 95% CI, 0.589-0.624; I 2 = 96.49%; p < 0.001). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score consistently outperformed systemic inflammatory response syndrome across all subgroup analyses (area under the curve of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment vs. area under the curve of systemic inflammatory response syndrome p < 0.001), including patient populations (emergency department vs ICU), study design (retrospective vs prospective), and countries (developed vs resource-limited). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was more specific (specificity, 74.58%; 95% CI, 73.55-75.61%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (specificity, 35.24%; 95% CI, 22.80-47.69%) but less sensitive (56.39%; 95% CI, 50.52-62.27%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (78.84%; 95% CI, 74.48-83.19%).ConclusionsOverall, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score outperforms systemic inflammatory response syndrome in predicting sepsis outcome, but quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score has relative strengths/weaknesses (more specific but less sensitive) compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Dataset Information

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets