Dataset Information

Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With 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.

Methods

We 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).

Results

Among 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?p?p?p?p?=?0.899), respectively). For patients with qSOFA ??2, mortality was 49% compared to 33% for those with qSOFA p?=?0.056), and for SOFA 56% vs. 11% (p?p?p?p?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.

SUBMITTER: Probst L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686367 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

Probst Lucie L Schalk Enrico E Liebregts Tobias T Zeremski Vanja V Tzalavras Asterios A von Bergwelt-Baildon Michael M Hesse Nina N Prinz Johanna J Vehreschild Jörg Janne JJ Shimabukuro-Vornhagen Alexander A Eichenauer Dennis A DA Garcia Borrega Jorge J Kochanek Matthias M Böll Boris B

Journal of intensive care 20190807

<h4>Background</h4>With 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 SO ...[more]

PMID: 31410290

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: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:BackgroundRecently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2?×?2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (<?2 and???2) or SIRS score (<?2 and???2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I2 index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy.ResultsEight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score???2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38-6.14) using a random-effects model (I2?=?91.1%). A SIRS score???2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96-3.86) using a random-effects model (I2?=?89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score???2 was more specific; however a SIRS score???2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections.ConclusionsA qSOFA score???2 and SIRS score???2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections.

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

Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets