Dataset Information

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of qSOFA as a risk stratification tool for patients admitted with infection compared to traditional SIRS criteria or our triage system; the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS).

Methods

The study was an observational cohort study performed at one Emergency Department (ED) in an urban university teaching hospital in Norway, with approximately 20,000 visits per year. All patients >16 years presenting with symptoms or clinical signs suggesting an infection (n?=?1535) were prospectively included in the study from January 1 to December 31, 2012. At arrival in the ED, vital signs were recorded and all patients were triaged according to RETTS vital signs, presenting infection, and sepsis symptoms. These admission data were also used to calculate qSOFA and SIRS. Treatment outcome was later retrieved from the patients' electronic records (EPR) and mortality data from the Norwegian population registry.

Results

Of the 1535 admitted patients, 108 (7.0%) fulfilled the Sepsis2 criteria for severe sepsis. The qSOFA score ?2 identified only 33 (sensitivity 0.32, specificity 0.98) of the patients with severe sepsis, whilst the RETTS-alert???orange identified 92 patients (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.55). Twenty-six patients died within 7 days of admission; four (15.4%) of them had a qSOFA ?2, and 16 (61.5%) had RETTS???orange alert. Of the 68 patients that died within 30 days, only eight (11.9%) scored ?2 on the qSOFA, and 45 (66.1%) had a RETTS???orange alert.

Discussion

In order to achieve timely treatment for sepsis, a sensitive screening tool is more important than a specific one. Our study is the fourth study were qSOFA finds few of the sepsis cases in prehospital or at arrival to the ED. We add information on the RETTS triage system, the two highest acuity levels together had a high sensitivity (85%) for identifying sepsis at arrival to the ED - and thus, RETTS should not be replaced by qSOFA as a screening and trigger tool for sepsis at arrival.

Conclusion

In this observational cohort study, qSOFA failed to identify two thirds of the patients admitted to an ED with severe sepsis. Further, qSOFA failed to be a risk stratification tool as the sensitivity to predict 7-day and 30-day mortality was low. The sensitivity was poorer than the other warning scores already in use at the study site, RETTS-triage and the SIRS criteria.

SUBMITTER: Askim A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5466747 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department.

Askim Åsa Å Moser Florentin F Gustad Lise T LT Stene Helga H Gundersen Maren M Åsvold Bjørn Olav BO Dale Jostein J Bjørnsen Lars Petter LP Damås Jan Kristian JK Solligård Erik E

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 20170609 1

<h4>Background</h4>We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of qSOFA as a risk stratification tool for patients admitted with infection compared to traditional SIRS criteria or our triage system; the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS).<h4>Methods</h4>The study was an observational cohort study performed at one Emergency Department (ED) in an urban university teaching hospital in Norway, with approximately 20,000 visits per year. All patients >16 years presenting with symptom ...[more]

PMID: 28599661

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Project description:Background: Recent attempts to translate Sepsis-3 criteria to children have been restricted to PICU patients and did not target children in emergency departments (ED). We assessed the prognostic accuracy of the age-adjusted quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA) and compared the performance to SIRS and the quick Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score (qPELOD-2). We studied whether the addition of lactate (qSOFA-L) would increase prognostic accuracy. Methods: Non-academic, single-center, retrospective study in children visiting the ED and admitted with suspected bacterial infection between March 2013 and January 2018. We defined suspected bacterial infection as initiation of antibiotic therapy within 24 h after ED entry. Age-adjusted qSOFA, SIRS, qPELOD-2, and qSOFA-L scores were compared by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) analysis. Primary outcome measure was PICU transfer and/or mortality and secondary outcome was prolonged hospital length of stay. Results: We included 864 ED visits [474 (55%) male; median age 2.5 years; IQR 9 months-6 years], of which 18 were transferred to a PICU and 6 ended in death [composite outcome PICU transfer and/or mortality; 23 admissions (2.7%)]. 179 (22.2%) admissions resulted in prolonged hospital length of stay. PICU transfer and/or death was present in 22.5% of visits with qSOFA≥2 (n = 40) compared to 2.0% of visits with qSOFA<2 (n = 444) (p < 0.01). qSOFA tends to be the best predictor of PICU transfer and/or mortality (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.86) compared to SIRS [0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.74), p = 0.23] and qPELOD-2 [0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.76), p = 0.03)]. Prolonged hospital length of stay was poorly predicted by qSOFA (AUROC 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.59), SIRS (0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.54), and qPELOD-2 (0.51, 95%CI 0.45-0.57). qSOFA-L resulted in an AUROC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50-0.84) for PICU transfer and/or mortality and an AUROC of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.67) for prolonged hospital length of stay. Conclusion: The currently proposed bedside risk-stratification tool of Sepsis-3 criteria, qSOFA, shows moderate prognostic accuracy for PICU transfer and/or mortality in children visiting the ED with suspected bacterial infection. The addition of lactate did not improve prognostic accuracy. Future prospective studies in larger ED populations are needed to further determine the utility of the qSOFA score.

Project description:BackgroundMany early warning scores (EWSs) have been validated to prognosticate adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis in the Emergency Department (ED). These EWSs include the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). However, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) has never been validated for this purpose. We aimed to assess and compare the prognostic utility of REMS with that of SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS for predicting mortality in patients with suspicion of sepsis in the ED.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study at the ED of Siriraj Hospital Mahidol University, Thailand. Adult patients suspected of having sepsis in the ED between August 2018 and July 2019 were included. Their EWSs were calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was 7-day mortality.ResultsA total of 1622 patients were included in the study; 457 (28.2%) died at hospital discharge. REMS yielded the highest discrimination capacity for in-hospital mortality (the area under the receiver operator characteristics curves (AUROC) 0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59, 0.65)), which was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.58 (95%CI 0.55, 0.60); p = 0.005) and SIRS (AUROC 0.52 (95%CI 0.49, 0.55); p < 0.001) but not significantly superior to NEWS (AUROC 0.61 (95%CI 0.58, 0.64); p = 0.27). REMS was the best EWS in terms of calibration and association with the outcome. It could also provide the highest net benefit from the decision curve analysis. Comparison of EWSs plus baseline risk model showed similar results. REMS also performed better than other EWSs for 7-day mortality.ConclusionREMS was an early warning score with higher accuracy than sepsis-related scores (qSOFA and SIRS), similar to NEWS, and had the highest utility in terms of net benefit compared to SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.

Project description:Background:Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of sepsis and common presentation to emergency department (ED) with a high mortality rate. The prognostic prediction value of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores in CAP in ED has not been validated in detail. The aim of this research is to investigate the prognostic prediction value of SOFA, qSOFA, and admission lactate compared with that of other commonly used severity scores (CURB65, CRB65, and PSI) in septic patients with CAP in ED. Methods:Adult septic patients with CAP admitted between Jan. 2017 and Jan. 2019 with increased admission SOFA???2 from baseline were enrolled. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcome included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use. Prognostic prediction performance of the parameters above was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using optimal cutoff values of qSOFA and admission lactate. Results:Among the 336 enrolled septic patients with CAP, 89 patients died and 247 patients survived after 28-day follow-up. The CURB65, CRB65, PSI, SOFA, qSOFA, and admission lactate levels were statistically significantly higher in the death group (P < 0.001). qSOFA and SOFA were superior and the combination of qSOFA?+?lactate and SOFA?+?lactate outperformed other combinations of severity score and admission lactate in predicting both primary and secondary outcomes. Patients with admission qSOFA?<?2 or lactate???2?mmol/L showed significantly prolonged survival than those patients with qSOFA???2 or lactate?>?2?mmol/L (log-rank ? 2?=?59.825, P < 0.001). The prognostic prediction performance of the combination of qSOFA and admission lactate was comparable to the full version of SOFA (AUROC 0.833 vs. 0.795, Z?=?1.378, P=0.168 in predicting 28-day mortality; AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.895, Z?=?1.022, P=0.307 in predicting ICU admission; AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.845, Z?=?0.921, P=0.357 in predicting mechanical ventilation; AUROC 0.875 vs. 0.821, Z?=?2.12, P=0.034 in predicting vasopressor use). Conclusion:qSOFA and SOFA were superior to CURB65, CRB65, and PSI in predicting 28-day mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use for septic patients with CAP in ED. Admission qSOFA with lactate is a convenient and useful predictor. Admission qSOFA???2 or lactate?>?2?mmol/L would be very helpful in discriminating high-risk patients with a higher mortality rate.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the daily practice of two emergency departments (ED) in the Netherlands, where systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score are used differently as screening tools for culture-positive sepsis.DesignA prospective cross-sectional multicentre study.SettingTwo EDs at two European clinical teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants760 patients with suspected infection who met SIRS criteria or had a qualifying qSOFA score who were treated at two EDs in the Netherlands from 1 January to 1 March 2018 were included.MethodsSIRS criteria and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient. The first hospital treated the patients who met SIRS criteria following the worldwide Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocol. At the second hospital, only patients who met the qualifying qSOFA score received this treatment. Therefore, patients could be divided into five groups: (1) SIRS+, qSOFA-, not treated according to protocol (reference group); (2) SIRS+, qSOFA-, treated according to protocol; (3) SIRS+, qSOFA+, treated according to protocol; (4) SIRS-, qSOFA+, not treated according to protocol; (5) SIRS-, qSOFA+, treated according to protocol.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo prove culture-positive sepsis was present, cultures were used as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.Results98.9% met SIRS criteria and 11.7% met qSOFA score. Positive predictive values of SIRS criteria and qSOFA score were 41.2% (95% CI 37.4% to 45.2%) and 48.1% (95% CI 37.4% to 58.9%), respectively. HRs were 0.79 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.56, p=0.500), 3.42 (95% CI 1.82 to 6.44, p<0.001), 18.94 (95% CI 2.48 to 144.89, p=0.005) and 4.97 (95% CI 1.44 to 17.16, p=0.011) for groups 2-5, respectively.ConclusionqSOFA score performed as well as SIRS criteria for identifying culture-positive sepsis and performed significantly better for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. This study shows that SIRS criteria are no longer necessary and recommends qSOFA score as the standard for identifying culture-positive sepsis in the ED.Trial registration numberNL8315.

Dataset Information

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets