Mortality and detailed characteristics of pre-ICU qSOFA-negative patients with suspected sepsis: an observational study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nakayama I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5882475 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mortality and detailed characteristics of pre-ICU qSOFA-negative patients with suspected sepsis: an observational study.
Nakayama Izumi I Izawa Junichi J Mouri Hideyuki H Kitamura Tetsuhisa T Shiotsuka Junji J
Annals of intensive care 20180403 1
<h4>Background</h4>Recent studies have suggested that quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores have limited utility in early prognostication in high-mortality populations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between pre-ICU qSOFA scores and in-hospital mortality among patients admitted to the ICU with suspected sepsis. This study also aimed to describe detailed clinical characteristics of qSOFA-negative (< 2) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This single center, o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To investigate whether procalcitonin (PCT) can improve the performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in predicting sepsis mortality, we conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study with independent validation in a prospectively collected cohort in 3 tertiary medical centers. Patients with presumed sepsis were included. Serum PCT levels were measured at admission. Quick SOFA score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria were calculated for each patient. PCT levels were assigned into 0, 1, and 2 points for a serum level of <0.25, 0.25 to 2, and >2 ng/mL, and added to the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. The incremental value of PCT to qSOFA was then evaluated by logistic regression, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and reclassification analysis.In all, 1318 patients with presumed severe infection were enrolled with a 30-day mortality of 13.5%. Serum level of PCT showed a high correlation with qSOFA score and 30-day inhospital mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.56 for SIRS criteria, 0.67 for qSOFA score, and 0.73 for qSOFA_PCT in predicting 30-day mortality. The risk prediction improvement was reflected by a net reclassification improvement of 35% (17%-52%). Incorporation of PCT into the qSOFA model could raise the sensitivity to 86.5% (95% confidence interval 80.6%-91.2%). In the validation cohort, qSOFA_PCT greatly improved the sensitivity to 90.9%.A simple modification of qSOFA score by adding the ordinal scale of PCT value to qSOFA could greatly improve the suboptimal sensitivity problem of qSOFA and may serve as a quick screening tool for early identification of sepsis.
| S-EPMC6571275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and compare prognostic accuracy of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to predict mortality in patients with suspected sepsis.MethodsThis meta-analysis followed accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases from establishment of the database to November 29, 2021. The pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model (BRM). Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were generated to assess the overall prognostic accuracy.ResultsData of 62338 patients from 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. qSOFA had the highest specificity and the lowest sensitivity with a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86) and a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.39-0.53). SIRS had the highest sensitivity and the lowest specificity with a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85) and a specificity 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19-0.29). NEWS had both an intermediate sensitivity and specificity with a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63-0.81) and a specificity 0.52 (95% CI: 0.39-0.65). qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS by comparing HSROC curves.ConclusionsAmong qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS, qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS. However, no scoring system has both high sensitivity and specificity for predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis.
| S-EPMC9012380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) was widely used to estimate the risks of sepsis in patients with suspected infection in the prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings. Due to the insufficient sensitivity of qSOFA on arrival at the ED (ED qSOFA), the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021 recommended against using qSOFA as a single screening tool for sepsis. However, it remains unclear whether the combined use of prehospital and ED qSOFA improves its sensitivity for identifying patients at a higher risk of sepsis at the ED.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data from the ED of a tertiary medical center in Japan from April 2018 through March 2021. Among all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) transported by ambulance to the ED with suspected infection, we identified patients who were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria. We compared the predictive abilities of prehospital qSOFA, ED qSOFA, and the sum of prehospital and ED qSOFA (combined qSOFA) for sepsis in patients with suspected infection at the ED.ResultsAmong 2,407 patients with suspected infection transported to the ED by ambulance, 369 (15%) patients were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis, and 217 (9%) died during hospitalization. The sensitivity of prehospital qSOFA ≥2 and ED qSOFA ≥2 were comparable (c-statistics for sepsis [95%CI], 0.57 [0.52-0.62] vs. 0.55 [0.50-0.60]). However, combined qSOFA (cutoff, ≥3 [max 6]) was more sensitive than ED qSOFA (cutoff, ≥2) for identifying sepsis (0.67 [95%CI, 0.62-0.72] vs. 0.55 [95%CI, 0.50-0.60]). Using combined qSOFA, we identified 44 (12%) out of 369 patients who were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis, which would have been missed using ED qSOFA alone.ConclusionsUsing both prehospital and ED qSOFA could improve the screening ability of sepsis among patients with suspected infection at the ED.
| S-EPMC9956063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:In hospitalized patients, the risk of sepsis-related mortality can be assessed using the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). Currently, different tools that predict deterioration such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) have been introduced in clinical practice in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. It remains ambiguous which screening tool for mortality at the ED is best. The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance for mortality of two sepsis-based scores (i.e. qSOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS)-criteria) compared to the more general NEWS score, in patients with suspected infection directly at presentation to the ED. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients who presented to the ED between June 2012 and May 2016 with suspected sepsis in a large tertiary care center were included. Suspected sepsis was defined as initiation of intravenous antibiotics and/or collection of any culture in the ED. Outcome was defined as 10-day and 30-day mortality after ED presentation. Predictive performance was expressed as discrimination (AUC) and calibration using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Subsequently, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. RESULTS:In total 8,204 patients were included of whom 286 (3.5%) died within ten days and 490 (6.0%) within 30 days after presentation. NEWS had the best performance, followed by qSOFA and SIRS (10-day AUC: 0.837, 0.744, 0.646, 30-day AUC: 0.779, 0.697, 0.631). qSOFA (?2) lacked a high sensitivity versus SIRS (?2) and NEWS (?7) (28.5%, 77.2%, 68.0%), whilst entailing highest specificity versus NEWS and SIRS (93.7%, 66.5%, 37.6%). CONCLUSIONS:NEWS is more accurate in predicting 10- and 30-day mortality than qSOFA and SIRS in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.
| S-EPMC6347138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a global healthcare challenge and reliable tools are needed to identify patients and stratify their risk. Here we compare the prognostic accuracy of the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and national early warning system (NEWS) scores for hospital mortality and other outcomes amongst patients with suspected infection at an academic public hospital.Measurements and main results10,981 adult patients with suspected infection hospitalized at a U.S. academic public hospital between 2011-2017 were retrospectively identified. Primary exposures were the maximum SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, and NEWS scores upon inclusion. Comparative prognostic accuracy for the primary outcome of hospital mortality was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Secondary outcomes included mortality in ICU versus non-ICU settings, ICU transfer, ICU length of stay (LOS) >3 days, and hospital LOS >7 days. Adjusted analyses were performed using a model of baseline risk for hospital mortality. 774 patients (7.1%) died in hospital. Discrimination for hospital mortality was highest for SOFA (AUROC 0.90 [95% CI, 0.89-0.91]), followed by NEWS (AUROC 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.86]), qSOFA (AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85]), and SIRS (AUROC 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.81]; p<0.001 for all comparisons). NEWS (AUROC 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95]) outperformed other scores in predicting ICU transfer (qSOFA AUROC 0.89 [95% CI, 0.87-0.91]; SOFA AUROC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.82-0.87]; SIRS AUROC 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.83]; p<0.001 for all comparisons). NEWS (AUROC 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) was also superior to other scores in predicting ICU LOS >3 days (SOFA AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85; qSOFA AUROC, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.84]; SIRS AUROC, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.74-0.76]; p<0.002 for all comparisons).ConclusionsMultivariate prediction scores, such as SOFA and NEWS, had greater prognostic accuracy than qSOFA or SIRS for hospital mortality, ICU transfer, and ICU length of stay. Complex sepsis scores may offer enhanced prognostic performance as compared to simple sepsis scores in inpatient hospital settings where more complex scores can be readily calculated.
| S-EPMC6746500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sepsis is a life-threating organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. This study proposed a new tool, i.e. modified qSOFA, for the early prognostic assessment of septic patients. All cases of sepsis/septic shock consecutively observed in 2 years (January 2017-December 2018), at St. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy, were included. Each patient was evaluated with qSOFA and a modified qSOFA (MqSOFA), i.e. adding a SpO2/FiO2 ratio to qSOFA. Logistic regression and survival analyses were applied to compare the two scores. A total number of 1137 consecutive cases of sepsis and septic shock were considered. Among them 136 were excluded for incomplete report of vital parameters. A total number of 668 patients (66.7%) were discharged, whereas 333 (33.3%) died because of sepsis-related complications. Data analysis showed that MqSOFA (AUC 0.805, 95% C.I. 0.776-0.833) had a greater ability to detect in-hospital mortality than qSOFA (AUC 0.712, 95% C.I. 0.678-0.746) (p < 0.001). Eighty-five patients (8.5%) were reclassified as high-risk (qSOFA< 2 and MqSOFA≥ 2) resulting in an improvement of sensitivity with a minor reduction in specificity. A significant difference of in-hospital mortality was observed between low-risk and reclassified high-risk (p < 0.001) and low-risk vs. high-risk groups (p < 0.001). We demonstrated that MqSOFA provided a better predictive score than qSOFA regarding patient's outcome. Since sepsis is an underhanded and time-dependent disease, physicians may rely upon the herein proposed simple score, i.e. MqSOFA, to establish patients' severity and outcome.
| S-EPMC7979592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognostic value of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) outside intensive care units has been criticized. Therefore, we aimed to improve its ability in predicting 30-day all-cause mortality, and in ruling out the cases at high risk of death among patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis at emergency department (ED) admission. METHODS:This study is a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study. We built three predictive models combining qSOFA with the clinical variables and serum biomarkers that resulted in an independent association with 30-day mortality, in both 848 undifferentiated patients (Group 1) and in 545 patients definitively diagnosed with sepsis (Group 2). The models reaching the highest negative predictive value (NPV) with the minimum expenditure of biomarkers in Group 1 and in Group 2 were validated in two cohorts of patients initially held out due to missing data. RESULTS:In terms of the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, all six models significantly exceeded qSOFA in predicting prognosis. An "extended" qSOFA (eqSOFA1) in Group 1 and an eqSOFA2 integrated with C-reactive protein and mid-regional proadrenomedullin (eqSOFA2+CRP+MR-proADM) in Group 2 reached the best NPV (0.94 and 0.93, respectively) and ease of use. eqSOFA1 and eqSOFA2+CRP+MR-proADM performed equally well in both the inception and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:We have derived and validated two prognostic models that outweigh qSOFA in predicting mortality and in identifying the low risk of death among patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis at ED admission.
| S-EPMC7230329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has not been well-evaluated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective:To 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 Participants:Retrospective 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. Exposures:Low (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 Measures:Predictive 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). Results:The 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 Relevance:When 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.
| S-EPMC6134436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTrajectories of physiomarkers over time can be useful to define phenotypes of disease progression and as predictors of clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify phenotypes of the time course of late-onset sepsis in premature infants in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.MethodsWe examined the trajectories of a validated continuous physiomarker, abnormal heart rate characteristics, using functional data analysis and clustering techniques.ParticipantsWe analyzed continuous heart rate characteristics data from 2989 very low birth weight infants (<1500 grams) from nine NICUs from 2004-2010.ResultDespite the relative homogeneity of the patients, we found extreme variability in the physiomarker trajectories. We identified phenotypes that were indicative of seven and 30 day mortality beyond that predicted by individual heart rate characteristics values or baseline demographic information.ConclusionTime courses of a heart rate characteristics physiomarker reveal snapshots of illness patterns, some of which were more deadly than others.
| S-EPMC7675854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pre-hospital spinal immobilisation by emergency medical services (EMS) staff is currently the standard of care in cases of suspected spinal column injuries. There is, however, a lack of data on the characteristics of patients who received spinal immobilisation during the pre-hospital phase and on the adverse effects of immobilisation. The objectives of this study were threefold. First, we determined the pre-hospital characteristics of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries who were immobilised by EMS staff. Second, we assessed the choices made by EMS staff regarding spinal immobilisation techniques and reasons for immobilisation. Third, we researched the possible adverse effects of immobilisation.A retrospective observational study in a cohort of blunt trauma patients.Data of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries were collected from one EMS organisation between January 2008 and January 2013. Coded data and free text notes were analysed.A total of 1082 patients were included in this study. Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of the patients based on valid pre-hospital criteria. In 2.1 % of the patients immobilisation was not based on valid criteria. Data of 1.6 % patients were missing. Main reasons for spinal immobilisation were posterior midline spinal tenderness (37.2 % of patients) and painful distracting injuries (13.5 % of patients). Spinal cord injury (SCI) was suspected in 5.7 % of the patients with posterior midline spinal tenderness. A total of 15.8 % patients were immobilised using non-standard methods. The reason for departure from the standard method was explained for 3 % of these patients. Reported adverse effects included pain (n = 10, 0.9 %,); shortness of breath (n = 3, 0.3 %); combativeness or anxiety (n = 6, 0.6 %); and worsening of pain when supine (n = 1, 0.1 %).Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of all included patients based on pre-hospital criteria. We found that consensus among EMS staff on how to interpret the criterion 'distracting injury' was lacking. Furthermore, the adverse effects of spinal immobilisation were incompletely documented in pre-hospital care reports. To provide validated information on potential symptoms of SCI, a uniform EMS scoring system for motoric assessment should be developed.
| S-EPMC5533828 | biostudies-other