Dataset Information

Assessment of disease-severity scoring systems for patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Due to the increasing burden on hospital systems, most elderly patients with non-surgical sepsis are admitted to general internal medicine departments. Disease-severity scoring systems are used for stratification of patients for utilization management, performance assessment, and clinical research. Some widely used scoring systems for septic patients are inappropriate when rating non-surgical patients in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) environment mainly because their calculations require types of data that are frequently unavailable. This study aimed to assess the fitness of four scoring systems for septic patients hospitalized in general internal medicine departments: modified early warning score (MEWS), simple clinical score (SCS), mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score, and rapid emergency medicine score (REMS).

Methods

We prospectively collected computerized data of septic patients admitted to general internal medicine departments in our community-based university hospital. We followed 28-day in-hospital mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and 30- and 60-day mortality. Using a logistic regression procedure we calculated the area under ROC curve (AUC) for every scoring system.

Results

Between February 1st, 2008 and April 30th, 2009 we gathered data of 1,072 patients meeting sepsis criteria on admission to general internal medicine departments. The 28-day mortality was 19.4%. The AUC for the MEWS was 0.65-0.70, for the SCS 0.76-0.79, for the MEDS 0.73-0.75, and for the REMS, 0.74-0.79. Using Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, a lack of fit was found for the MEDS model. All scoring systems performed better than calculations based on sepsis severity.

Conclusions

The SCS and REMS are the most appropriate clinical scores to predict the mortality of patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.

SUBMITTER: Ghanem-Zoubi NO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3219360 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of disease-severity scoring systems for patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.

Ghanem-Zoubi Nesrin O NO Vardi Moshe M Laor Arie A Weber Gabriel G Bitterman Haim H

Critical care (London, England) 20110314 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Due to the increasing burden on hospital systems, most elderly patients with non-surgical sepsis are admitted to general internal medicine departments. Disease-severity scoring systems are used for stratification of patients for utilization management, performance assessment, and clinical research. Some widely used scoring systems for septic patients are inappropriate when rating non-surgical patients in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) environment mainly because their calcul ...[more]

PMID: 21401927

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database.MethodsAll consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality.ResultsPredictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve >?0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score ??2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score ??8 (73.1%), SOFA ??3 (75.2%), and APACHE II ??14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS ??8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score ??3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA ??4 and WSESSSS ??8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality).ConclusionsNo one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest "inclusion-criteria" to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission.Trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095; Registered on May 22, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the predictive power of three different Sepsis Scoring Systems (SSSs), namely maternity Systematic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (mSIRS), quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Modified Early Warning System (MEWS) in identifying sepsis by comparing them with positive culture. This study also sought to evaluate compliance with using the Sepsis Six Care Bundle (SSCB) operated in an individual health board.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in 3 maternity hospitals of a single Scottish health board that admitted 2690 pregnancies in a 12 weeks period in 2016. Data for study was obtained from medical notes, handheld and electronic health records for women who were prescribed antibiotics with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of sepsis. Data on clinical parameters was used to classify women according to mSIRS, qSOFA and MEWS as having sepsis or not and this was compared to results of positive culture to obtain sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) along with their 95% confidence intervals. Data was also obtained on SSCB compliance.ResultsA total of 89 women were diagnosed with sepsis, of which 14 had missing data, leaving 75 for final analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUROC of mSIRS and MEWS were almost similar with AUROC of both being around 50%. Only 33 (37.1%) had identifiable sepsis six sticker displayed on medical notes and only 2 (2.2%) had all elements of SSCB delivered within the recommended one-hour post-diagnosis period. Blood culture and full blood count with other lab tests had been performed for most women (97%) followed by intravenous antibiotics and fluids (93.9%).ConclusionsmSIRS and MEWS were quite similar in detecting sepsis when compared to positive culture, with their ability to detect sepsis being close to chance. This underlines the need for creating a valid SSS with high sensitivity and specificity for clinical use in obstetric settings. Clinical use of SSCB was limited despite it being a health board policy, although there is considerable possibility of improvement following detailed audits and removal of barriers for implementing SSCB.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of five different CT chest severity scoring systems for COVID-19 to find the most precise one with the least interpretation time.Methods and materialsThis retrospective study included 85 patients (54 male and 31 female) with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. They underwent CT to assess the severity of pulmonary involvement. Three readers were asked to assess the pulmonary abnormalities and score the severity using five different systems, including chest CT severity score (CT-SS), chest CT score, total severity score (TSS), modified total severity score (m-TSS), and 3-level chest CT severity score. Time consumption on reporting of each system was calculated.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-five observations were reported for each system. There was a statistically significant inter-observer agreement in assessing qualitative lung involvement using the m-TSS and the other four quantitative systems. The ROC curves revealed excellent and very good diagnostic accuracy for all systems when cutoff values for detection severe cases were > 22, > 17, > 12, and > 26 for CT-SS, chest CT score, TSS, and 3-level CT severity score. The AUC was very good (0.86), excellent (0.90), very good (0.89), and very good (0.86), respectively. Chest CT score showed the highest specificity (95.2%) in discrimination of severe cases. Time consumption on reporting was significantly different (< 0.001): CT-SS > 3L-CT-SS > chest CT score > TSS.ConclusionAll chest CT severity scoring systems in this study demonstrated excellent inter-observer agreement and reasonable performance to assess COVID-19 in relation to the clinical severity. CT-SS and TSS had the highest specificity and least time for interpretation.Key points• All chest CT severity scoring systems discussed in this study revealed excellent inter-observer agreement and reasonable performance to assess COVID-19 in relation to the clinical severity. • Chest CT scoring system and TSS had the highest specificity. • Both TSS and m-TSS consumed the least time compared to the other three scoring systems.

Project description:Introduction Sepsis can lead to organ dysfunctions with disturbed oxygen dynamics and life-threatening consequences. Since the results of organ-protective treatments cannot always be transferred from laboratory models into human therapies, increasing the translational potential of preclinical settings is an important goal. Our aim was to develop a standardized research protocol, where the progression of sepsis-related events can be characterized reproducibly in model experiments within clinically-relevant time frames. Methods Peritonitis was induced in anesthetized minipigs injected intraperitoneally with autofeces inoculum (n = 27) or with saline (sham operation; n = 9). The microbial colony-forming units (CFUs) in the inoculum were retrospectively determined. After awakening, clinically relevant supportive therapies were conducted. Nineteen inoculated animals developed sepsis without a fulminant reaction. Sixteen hours later, these animals were re-anesthetized for invasive monitoring. Blood samples were taken to detect plasma TNF-α, IL-10, big endothelin (bET), high mobility group box protein1 (HMGB1) levels and blood gases, and sublingual microcirculatory measurements were conducted. Hemodynamic, respiratory, coagulation, liver and kidney dysfunctions were detected to characterize the septic status with a pig-specific Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score and its simplified version (respiratory, cardiovascular and renal failure) between 16 and 24 h of the experiments. Results Despite the standardized sepsis induction, the animals could be clustered into two distinct levels of severity: a sepsis (n = 10; median pSOFA score = 2) and a septic shock (n = 9; median pSOFA score = 8) subgroup at 18 h of the experiments, when the decreased systemic vascular resistance, increased DO2 and VO2, and markedly increased ExO2 demonstrated a compensated hyperdynamic state. Septic animals showed severity-dependent scores for organ failure with reduced microcirculation despite the adequate oxygen dynamics. Sepsis severity characterized later with pSOFA scores was in correlation with the germ count in the induction inoculum (r = 0.664) and CFUs in hemocultures (r = 0.876). Early changes in plasma levels of TNF-α, bET and HMGB1 were all related to the late-onset organ dysfunctions characterized by pSOFA scores. Conclusions This microbiologically-monitored, large animal model of intraabdominal sepsis is suitable for clinically-relevant investigations. The methodology combines the advantages of conscious and anesthetized studies, and mimics human sepsis and septic shock closely with the possibility of numerical quantification of host responses.

Project description:ImportanceThe variation in both clinical appearance and responses to diverse treatment options emphasize the importance of an accurate, clinically relevant, yet easy-to-use scoring system in hidradenitis suppurativa.ObjectiveTo propose and provide validation data for the newly designed Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively assessed disease severity using Hurley staging and the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score in 355 patients referred to Ruhr-University Bochum Department of Dermatology between March 2016 and June 2017. We also assessed disease severity via the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.Main outcomes and measuresEvaluation and assessment of convergent validity and responsiveness to treatment of the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.ResultsEighty-eight of the 355 patients (134 [37.7%] men and 221 [62.3%] women with a median [IQR] age of 40 [30-49] years) were classified as Hurley stage I, 221 were Hurley stage II, and 46 were Hurley stage III, with an overall median modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score of 31 (interquartile range [IQR], 19.3-53). The median total Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score was 6 (IQR, 4-9), significantly different among the 3 Hurley groups. The median SAHS score for patients in Hurley stage I was 5 (IQR, 3-6), 6 (IQR, 5-9) for patients in Hurley stage II, and 9 (IQR, 7-12) for patients in Hurley stage III (P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score and the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score (r = 0.79, P < .001). Disease severity assessment before and after 3 months of conservative systemic treatment showed a significant correlation between the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score and modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score. Both the mHSS (P = .001) and the SAHS score (P < .001) significantly differed between the baseline visit (median mHSS, 33 [IQR, 24-52]; median SAHS score, 6 [IQR, 5-9]) and the 3-month visit (median mHSS, 28 [IQR, 15-43.5]; median SAHS score, 5 [IQR, 4-6.3]). The 2 patient-reported items demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient values greater than 0.8.Conclusions and relevanceOur validation data demonstrated that the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score is a disease severity instrument that significantly correlates with Hurley staging and the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score, and is responsive enough to measure treatment outcome.

Dataset Information

Assessment of disease-severity scoring systems for patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessment of disease-severity scoring systems for patients with sepsis in general internal medicine departments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets