Dataset Information

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. PATIENTS:Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0?mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/?L (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS:The Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

SUBMITTER: Rhee C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6383796 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

Rhee Chanu C Zhang Zilu Z Kadri Sameer S SS Murphy David J DJ Martin Greg S GS Overton Elizabeth E Seymour Christopher W CW Angus Derek C DC Dantes Raymund R Epstein Lauren L Fram David D Schaaf Richard R Wang Rui R Klompas Michael M

Critical care medicine 20190301 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified orga ...[more]

PMID: 30768498

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIn 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention introduced the Adult Sepsis Event (ASE) definition, using electronic health records (EHRs) data for surveillance and sepsis quality improvement. However, data regarding ASE outside the United States remain limited. We therefore aimed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the ASE and to assess the prevalence and mortality of sepsis using ASE.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA single center in South Korea, with 2732 beds including 221 ICU beds.PatientsDuring the validation phase, adult patients who were hospitalized or visiting the emergency department between November 5 and November 11, 2019, were included. In the subsequent phase of epidemiologic analysis, we included adult patients who were admitted from January to December 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsASE had a sensitivity of 91.6%, a specificity of 98.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 57.4%, and a negative predictive value of 99.8% when compared with the Sepsis-3 definition. Of 126,998 adult patient hospitalizations in 2020, 6,872 cases were diagnosed with sepsis based on the ASE (5.4% per year), and 893 patients were identified as having sepsis according to the International Classification of Diseases , 10th Edition (ICD-10) (0.7% per year). Hospital mortality rates were 16.6% (ASE) and 23.5% (ICD-10-coded sepsis). Monthly sepsis prevalence and hospital mortality exhibited less variation when diagnosed using ASE compared with ICD-10 coding (coefficient of variation [CV] for sepsis prevalence: 0.051 vs. 0.163, Miller test p < 0.001; CV for hospital mortality: 0.087 vs. 0.261, p = 0.001).ConclusionsASE demonstrated high sensitivity and a moderate PPV compared with the Sepsis-3 criteria in a Korean population. The prevalence of sepsis, as defined by ASE, was 5.4% per year and was similar to U.S. estimates. The prevalence of sepsis by ASE was eight times higher and exhibited less monthly variability compared with that based on the ICD-10 code.

Project description:The Sepsis-3 taskforce defined sepsis as suspicion of infection and an acute rise in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 points over the preinfection baseline. Sepsis-3 studies, though, have not distinguished between acute and chronic organ failure, and may not accurately reflect the epidemiology, natural history, or impact of sepsis. Our objective was to determine the extent to which the predictive validity of Sepsis-3 is attributable to chronic rather than acute organ failure.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingGeneral medicine inpatient service at a tertiary teaching hospital.PatientsA total of 3,755 adult medical acute-care encounters (1,864 confirmed acute infections) over 1 year.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe measured the total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at the onset of infection and separated its components (baseline and acute rise) using case-by-case chart reviews. We compared the predictive validities of acuity-focused (acute rise in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ≥ 2) and conventional (total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ≥ 2) implementations of Sepsis-3 criteria. Measures of predictive validity were change in the rate of outcomes and change in the area under receiver operating characteristic curves after adding sepsis criteria to multivariate logistic regression models of baseline risk (age, sex, race, and Charlson comorbidity index). Outcomes were inhospital mortality (primary) and ICU transfer or inhospital mortality (secondary). Acuity-focused implementations of Sepsis-3 were associated with neither a change in mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%; p = 0.18) nor a rise in area under receiver operating characteristic curves compared with baseline models (0.67 vs 0.66; p = 0.75). In contrast, conventional implementations were associated with a six-fold change in mortality (2.4% vs 0.4%; p = 0.01) and a rise in area under receiver operating characteristic curves compared with baseline models (0.70 vs 0.66; p = 0.04). Results were similar for the secondary outcome.ConclusionsThe evaluation of the validity of organ dysfunction-based clinical sepsis criteria is prone to bias, because acute organ dysfunction consequent to infection is difficult to separate from preexisting organ failure in large retrospective cohorts.

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:The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released simplified eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria of Adult Sepsis Event for sepsis surveillance in the US. Our study aimed to compare the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of sepsis patients identified by eSOFA criteria versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score (Sepsis-3) and assess the external validity of eSOFA criteria in China. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult residents of Yuetan Subdistrict, Beijing, China, who were hospitalized from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014. Among patients with infection, sepsis was identified if there was a concurrent rise in SOFA score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or the presence of 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to 2.0 mg/dL or above, 50% or greater decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/μL, or lactate equal to or above 2.0 mmol/L. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for in-hospital mortality were compared between sepsis patients detected by the two criteria, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS:Of 1716 hospitalized patients with infection, 935 (54.5%) met Sepsis-3 criteria, 573 (33.4%) met eSOFA criteria, while 475 (27.7%) met both criteria. Demographic and clinical characteristics of sepsis patients meeting Sepsis-3 or eSOFA criteria were similar. In-hospital mortality was higher with eSOFA criteria versus Sepsis-3 (46.6% vs. 32.0%, p < 0.001). eSOFA criteria had high PPV (82.9%), but low sensitivity (50.8%) for the diagnosis of Sepsis-3. Patients meeting both criteria had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (52.8%, all p < 0.001), while patients who only met eSOFA criteria had higher mortality rate than those meeting Sepsis-3 alone (16.3% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.097). The predicted probability for in-hospital mortality was higher with eSOFA criteria versus Sepsis-3 (AUROC 0.830 vs. 0.795, p = 0.001) adjusting for baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:The CDC Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill cohort of sepsis patients with similar demographic and clinical characteristics as the more complex Sepsis-3 SOFA score. These results suggest similar performance of eSOFA criteria across diverse populations, with low sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of Sepsis-3.

Project description:ObjectivesEarly identification of sepsis is critical to improving patient outcomes. Impact of the new sepsis definition (Sepsis-3) on timing of recognition in the emergency department has not been evaluated. Our study objective was to compare time to meeting systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Sepsis-2) criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (Sepsis-3) criteria, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria using electronic health record data.DesignRetrospective, observational study.SettingThe emergency department at the University of California, San Francisco.PatientsEmergency department encounters between June 2012 and December 2016 for patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with blood cultures ordered, IV antibiotic receipt, and identification with sepsis via systemic inflammatory response syndrome or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment within 72 hours of emergency department presentation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe analyzed timestamped electronic health record data from 16,612 encounters identified as sepsis by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria or a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 2. The primary outcome was time from emergency department presentation to meeting greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and/or greater than or equal to 2 quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria. There were 9,087 patients (54.7%) that met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first a median of 26 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 0-109 min), with 83.1% meeting Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria a median of 118 minutes later (interquartile range, 44-401 min). There were 7,037 patients (42.3%) that met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first, a median of 113 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 60-251 min). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was met in 46.4% of patients a median of 351 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 67-1,165 min). Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were 39% greater in patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first compared with those who met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.20-1.61).ConclusionsSystemic inflammatory response syndrome and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment initially identified distinct populations. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome resulted in earlier electronic health record sepsis identification in greater than 50% of patients. Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone may delay identification. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome alone may lead to missed sepsis presenting as acute organ dysfunction. Thus, a combination of inflammatory (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) and organ dysfunction (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) criteria may enhance timely electronic health record-based sepsis identification.

Dataset Information

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

Publications

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets