Dataset Information

Prognostic accuracy of the serum lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality among adults with Sepsis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sepsis is a common critical condition caused by the body's overwhelming response to certain infective agents. Many biomarkers, including the serum lactate level, have been used for sepsis diagnosis and guiding treatment. Recently, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) recommended the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the quick SOFA (qSOFA) rather than lactate for screening sepsis and assess prognosis. Here, we aim to explore and compare the prognostic accuracy of the lactate level, the SOFA score and the qSOFA score for mortality in septic patients using the public Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database (MIMIC III).

Methods

The baseline characteristics, laboratory test results and outcomes for sepsis patients were retrieved from MIMIC III. Survival was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of prognosis. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was conducted to compare lactate with SOFA and qSOFA scores.

Results

A total of 3713 cases were initially identified. The analysis cohort included 1865 patients. The 24-h average lactate levels and the worst scores during the first 24?h of ICU admission were collected. Patients in the higher lactate group had higher mortality than those in the lower lactate group. Lactate was an independent predictor of sepsis prognosis. The AUROC of lactate (AUROC, 0.664 [95% CI, 0.639-0.689]) was significantly higher than that of qSOFA (AUROC, 0.547 [95% CI, 0.521-0.574]), and it was similar to the AUROC of SOFA (AUROC, 0.686 [95% CI, 0.661-0.710]). But the timing of lactate relative to SOFA and qSOFA scores was inconsistent.

Conclusion

Lactate is an independent prognostic predictor of mortality for patients with sepsis. It has superior discriminative power to qSOFA, and shows discriminative ability similar to that of SOFA.

SUBMITTER: Liu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6492372 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Sepsis Prediction Model (SPM) is a proprietary decision support tool created by Epic Systems; it generates a predicting sepsis score (PSS). The model has not undergone validation against existing sepsis prediction tools, such as Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), or quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Asessement (qSOFA).ObjectiveTo assess the validity and timeliness of the SPM compared with SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included all adults admitted to 5 acute care hospitals in a single US health system between June 5, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from March 2021 to February 2023.Main outcomes and measuresA sepsis event was defined as receipt of 4 or more days of antimicrobials, blood cultures collected within ±48 hours of initial antimicrobial, and at least 1 organ dysfunction as defined by the organ dysfunction criteria optimized for the electronic health record (eSOFA). Time zero was defined as 15 minutes prior to qualifying antimicrobial or blood culture order.ResultsOf 60 507 total admissions, 1663 (2.7%) met sepsis criteria, with 1324 electronic health record-confirmed sepsis (699 [52.8%] male patients; 298 [22.5%] Black patients; 46 [3.5%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; 945 [71.4%] White patients), 339 COVID-19 sepsis (183 [54.0%] male patients; 98 [28.9%] Black patients; 36 [10.6%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; and 189 [55.8%] White patients), and 58 844 (97.3%; 26 632 [45.2%] male patients; 12 698 [21.6%] Black patients; 3367 [5.7%] Hispanic/Latinx patients; 40 491 White patients) did not meet sepsis criteria. The median (IQR) age was 63 (51 to 73) years for electronic health record-confirmed sepsis, 69 (60 to 77) years for COVID-19 sepsis, and 60 (42 to 72) years for nonsepsis admissions. Within the vendor recommended threshold PSS range of 5 to 8, PSS of 8 or greater had the highest balanced accuracy for classifying a sepsis admission at 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.80). Change in SOFA score of 2 or more had the highest sensitivity, at 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.98). At a PSS of 8 or greater, median (IQR) time to score positivity from time zero was 68.00 (6.75 to 605.75) minutes. For SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA, median (IQR) time to score positivity was 7.00 (-105.00 to 08.00) minutes, 74.00 (-22.25 to 599.25) minutes, and 28.00 (-108.50 to 134.00) minutes, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of hospital admissions, balanced accuracy of the SPM outperformed other models at higher threshold PSS; however, application of the SPM in a clinical setting was limited by poor timeliness as a sepsis screening tool as compared to SIRS and SOFA.

Project description:BackgroundWith Sepsis-3, the increase in sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) as a clinical score for the identification of patients with sepsis and quickSOFA (qSOFA) for the identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU) were introduced in 2016. However, their validity has been questioned, and their applicability in different settings and subgroups, such as hematological cancer patients, remains unclear. We therefore assessed the validity of SOFA, qSOFA, and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria regarding the diagnosis of sepsis and the prediction of in-hospital mortality in a multicenter cohort of hematological cancer patients treated on ICU and non-ICU settings.MethodsWe retrospectively calculated SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA scores in our cohort and applied the definition of sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection" as reference. Discriminatory capacity was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).ResultsAmong 450 patients with hematological cancer (median age 58?years, 274 males [61%]), 180 (40%) had sepsis of which 101 (56%) were treated on ICU. For the diagnosis of sepsis, sensitivity was 86%, 64%, and 42% for SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA, respectively. However, the AUROCs of SOFA and qSOFA indicated better discrimination for sepsis than SIRS (SOFA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64-0.73] p?<?0.001; qSOFA, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.62-0.71] p?<?0.001; SIRS, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53-0.61] p?<?0.001).In-hospital mortality was 40% and 14% in patients with and without sepsis, respectively (p?<?0.001). Regarding patients with sepsis, mortality was similar in patients with positive and negative SIRS scores (39% vs. 40% (p?=?0.899), respectively). For patients with qSOFA ??2, mortality was 49% compared to 33% for those with qSOFA <?2 (p?=?0.056), and for SOFA 56% vs. 11% (p?<?0.001), respectively. SOFA allowed significantly better discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69-0.79] p?<?0.001) than qSOFA (AUROC 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.71] p?<?0.001) or SIRS (AUROC 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44-0.54] p?<?0.001).ConclusionsAn increase in SOFA score of ??2 had better prognostic accuracy for both diagnosis of sepsis and in-hospital mortality in this setting, and especially on ICU, we observed limited validity of SIRS criteria and qSOFA in identifying hematological patients with sepsis and at high risk of death.

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:IntroductionAn increasing amount of longitudinal health data is available on critically ill septic patients in the age of digital medicine, including daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score measurements. Thus, the assessment in sepsis focuses increasingly on the evaluation of the individual disease's trajectory. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may provide a promising approach here to improve the evaluation of daily SOFA score dynamics. We tested whether ML algorithms can outperform the conventional ΔSOFA score regarding the accuracy of 30-day mortality prediction.MethodsWe used the multicentric SepsisDataNet.NRW study cohort that prospectively enrolled 252 sepsis patients between 03/2018 and 09/2019 for training ML algorithms, i.e. support vector machine (SVM) with polynomial kernel and artificial neural network (aNN). We used the Amsterdam UMC database covering 1,790 sepsis patients for external and independent validation.ResultsBoth SVM (AUC 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-0.96) and aNN (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.95) assessing the SOFA scores of the first seven days led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score between day 1 and 7 (AUC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.65-0.80; p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). These differences were even more prominent the shorter the time interval considered. Using the SOFA scores of day 1 to 3 SVM (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68 0.95) and aNN (AUC 0.80; 95% CI: 0.660.93) led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score (AUC 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.74; p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Strikingly, all these findings could be confirmed in the independent external validation cohort.ConclusionsThe ML-based algorithms using daily SOFA scores markedly improved the accuracy of mortality compared to the conventional ΔSOFA score. Therefore, this approach could provide a promising and automated approach to assess the individual disease trajectory in sepsis. These findings reflect the potential of incorporating ML algorithms as robust and generalizable support tools on intensive care units.

Project description:BackgroundWe 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsOf 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.DiscussionIn 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.ConclusionIn 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.