Dataset Information

External validation of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for mortality and bacteraemia risk evaluation in Japanese patients undergoing haemodialysis: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to examine the validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for mortality and bacteraemia risk assessment in Japanese haemodialysis patients.

Design

This is a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

Setting

The six participating hospitals are tertiary-care institutions that receive patients on an emergency basis and provide primary, secondary and tertiary care. The other participating hospital is a secondary-care institution that receives patients on an emergency basis and provides both primary and secondary care.

Participants

This study included haemodialysis outpatients admitted for bacteraemia suspicion, who had blood drawn for cultures within 48?hours of their initial admission.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was overall in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 28-day in-hospital mortality and the incidence of bacteraemia diagnosed based on blood culture findings. The discrimination, calibration and test performance of the qSOFA score were assessed. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.

Results

Among the 507 haemodialysis patients admitted with bacteraemia suspicion between August 2011 and July 2013, the overall in-hospital mortality was 14.6% (74/507), the 28-day in-hospital mortality was 11.1% (56/507) and the incidence of bacteraemia, defined as a positive blood culture, was 13.4% (68/507). For predicting in-hospital mortality among haemodialysis patients, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.67) for a qSOFA score ?2. The Hosmer-Lemeshow ?² statistics for the qSOFA score as a predictor of overall and 28-day in-hospital mortality were 5.72 (p=0.02) and 7.40 (p<0.01), respectively.

Conclusion

On external validation, the qSOFA score exhibited low diagnostic accuracy and miscalibration for in-hospital mortality and bacteraemia among haemodialysis patients.

SUBMITTER: Nishiwaki H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6629386 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for mortality and bacteraemia risk evaluation in Japanese patients undergoing haemodialysis: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

Nishiwaki Hiroki H Sasaki Sho S Hasegawa Takeshi T Sasai Fumihiko F Kawarazaki Hiroo H Minatoguchi Shun S Uchida Daisuke D Koitabashi Kenichiro K Ozeki Takaya T Koiwa Fumihiko F

BMJ open 20190711 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to examine the validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for mortality and bacteraemia risk assessment in Japanese haemodialysis patients.<h4>Design</h4>This is a retrospective multicentre cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>The six participating hospitals are tertiary-care institutions that receive patients on an emergency basis and provide primary, secondary and tertiary care. The other participating hospital is a secondary-care institution th ...[more]

PMID: 31300504

Similar Datasets

Project description:We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether the newly introduced quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score could predict sepsis outcomes and compared its performance to systematic inflammatory response syndrome, the previously widely used screening criteria for sepsis.Data sourcesWe searched multiple electronic databases including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (up to March 1, 2019) that evaluated quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or both (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42018103327).Study selectionStudies were included if the outcome was mortality, organ dysfunction, admission to ICU, ventilatory support, or prolonged ICU stay and if prediction performance was reported as either area under the curve, odds ratio, sensitivity, or specificity.Data extractionThe criterion validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were assessed by measuring its predictive validity for primary (mortality) and secondary outcomes in pooled metrics as mentioned. The data were analyzed using random effects model, and heterogeneity was explored using prespecified subgroups analyses.Data synthesisWe screened 1,340 studies, of which 121 studies (including data for 1,716,017 individuals) were analyzed. For mortality prediction, the pooled area under the curve was higher for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.702; 95% CI, 0.685-0.718; I 2 = 99.41%; p < 0.001) than for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (0.607; 95% CI, 0.589-0.624; I 2 = 96.49%; p < 0.001). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score consistently outperformed systemic inflammatory response syndrome across all subgroup analyses (area under the curve of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment vs. area under the curve of systemic inflammatory response syndrome p < 0.001), including patient populations (emergency department vs ICU), study design (retrospective vs prospective), and countries (developed vs resource-limited). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was more specific (specificity, 74.58%; 95% CI, 73.55-75.61%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (specificity, 35.24%; 95% CI, 22.80-47.69%) but less sensitive (56.39%; 95% CI, 50.52-62.27%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (78.84%; 95% CI, 74.48-83.19%).ConclusionsOverall, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score outperforms systemic inflammatory response syndrome in predicting sepsis outcome, but quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score has relative strengths/weaknesses (more specific but less sensitive) compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Project description:This study aimed to assess the value of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) combined with other risk factors in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infection. This post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter study dataset included 34 emergency departments across Japan (December 2017 to February 2018). We included adult patients (age ≥16 years) who presented to the emergency department with suspected infection. qSOFA was calculated and recorded by senior emergency physicians when they suspected an infection. Different types of sepsis-related risk factors (demographic, functional, and laboratory values) were chosen from prior studies. A logistic regression model was used to assess the predictive value of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in models based on the following combination of predictors: 1) qSOFA-Only; 2) qSOFA+Age; 3) qSOFA+Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); 4) qSOFA+Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); 5) qSOFA+lactate levels; 6) qSOFA+Age+CCI+CFS+lactate levels. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and other key clinical statistics at Youden's index, where the sum of sensitivity and specificity is maximized. Following prior literature, an AUC >0.9 was deemed to indicate high accuracy; 0.7-0.9, moderate accuracy; 0.5-0.7, low accuracy; and 0.5, a chance result. Of the 951 patients included in the analysis, 151 (15.9%) died during hospitalization. The AUC for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.627 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.580-0.673) for the qSOFA-Only model. Addition of other variables only marginally improved the model's AUC; the model that included all potentially relevant variables yielded an AUC of only 0.730 (95% CI: 0.687-0.774). Other key statistic values were similar among all models, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.55-0.65 and 0.60-0.75, respectively. In this post-hoc data analysis from a prospective multicenter study based in Japan, combining qSOFA with other sepsis-related risk factors only marginally improved the model's predictive value.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The usefulness of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in providing bedside criteria for early prediction of poor outcomes in patients with suspected infection remains controversial. We investigated the prognostic performance of a positive qSOFA score outside the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were pooled on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic OR. Overall test performance was summarized using a hierarchical summary ROC and the AUC. Meta-regression analysis was used to identify potential sources of bias. RESULTS:We identified 23 studies with a total of 146,551 patients. When predicting in-hospital mortality in our meta-analysis, we identified pooled sensitivities of 0.51 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.86 for positive SIRS criteria, as well as pooled specificities of 0.83 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.29 for positive SIRS criteria. Discrimination for in-hospital mortality had similar AUCs between the two tools (0.74 vs. 0.71; P?=?0.816). Using meta-regression analysis, an overall mortality rate???10% and timing of qSOFA score measurement could be significant sources of heterogeneity. For predicting acute organ dysfunction, although the AUC for a positive qSOFA score was higher than that for positive SIRS criteria (0.87 vs. 0.76; P?<?0.001), the pooled sensitivity of positive qSOFA score was very low (0.47). In addition, a positive qSOFA score tended to be inferior to positive SIRS criteria in predicting ICU admission (0.63 vs. 0.78; P?=?0.121). CONCLUSIONS:A positive qSOFA score had high specificity outside the ICU in early detection of in-hospital mortality, acute organ dysfunction, and ICU admission, but low sensitivity may have limitations as a predictive tool for adverse outcomes. Because between-study heterogeneity was highly represented among the studies, our results should be interpreted with caution.

Dataset Information

External validation of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for mortality and bacteraemia risk evaluation in Japanese patients undergoing haemodialysis: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

External validation of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for mortality and bacteraemia risk evaluation in Japanese patients undergoing haemodialysis: a retrospective multicentre cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure