NEWS2 is Superior to qSOFA in Detecting Sepsis with Organ Dysfunction in the Emergency Department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mellhammar L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6723972 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:The initial presentation of sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is difficult to distinguish from other acute illnesses based upon similar clinical presentations. A new blood parameter, a measurement of increased monocyte volume distribution width (MDW), may be used in combination with other clinical parameters to improve early sepsis detection. We sought to determine if MDW, when combined with other available clinical parameters at the time of ED presentation, improves the early detection of sepsis. Methods:A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data available during the initial ED encounter of 2158 adult patients who were enrolled from emergency departments of three major academic centers, of which 385 fulfilled Sepsis-2 criteria, and 243 fulfilled Sepsis-3 criteria within 12?h of admission. Sepsis probabilities were determined based on MDW values, alone or in combination with components of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score obtained during the initial patient presentation (i.e., within 2?h of ED admission). Results:Abnormal MDW (>?20.0) consistently increased sepsis probability, and normal MDW consistently reduced sepsis probability when used in combination with SIRS criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, abnormal white blood count, or body temperature) or qSOFA criteria (tachypnea, altered mental status, but not hypotension). Overall, and regardless of other SIRS or qSOFA variables, MDW >?20.0 (vs. MDW ??20.0) at the time of the initial ED encounter was associated with an approximately 6-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-2, and an approximately 4-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-3. Conclusions:MDW improves the early detection of sepsis during the initial ED encounter and is complementary to SIRS and qSOFA parameters that are currently used for this purpose. This study supports the incorporation of MDW with other readily available clinical parameters during the initial ED encounter for the early detection of sepsis. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145428. First posted May 9, 2017. The first subjects were enrolled June 19, 2017, and the study completion date was January 26, 2018.
| S-EPMC7201542 | 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:Around 42,000 children suffer from severe sepsis each year in the US alone, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and billion dollar expenditures in the US healthcare system. Sepsis recognition is a clinical challenge in children. Biomarkers are needed to tailor appropriate antimicrobial therapies and improve risk stratification. The goal of this study was to determine if gene expression profiles from peripheral blood were associated with pathogen type and sepsis severity in children treated for suspected sepsis.
2020-01-01 | GSE119217 | GEO
Project description:Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) noninvasively measures peripheral tissue oxygen saturation (StO?). NIRS may be utilized along with a vascular occlusion test, in which limb blood flow is temporarily occluded and released, to quantify a tissue bed's rate of oxygen exchange during ischemia and recovery. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that NIRS-derived StO? measures (StO? initial, StO? occlusion and StO? recovery) identify patients who are in shock and at increased risk of organ dysfunction (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ? 2 at 24 hours) and dying in the hospital.This prospective, observational study comprised a convenience sample of three cohorts of adult patients (age > 17 years) at three urban university emergency departments: (1) a septic shock cohort (systolic blood pressure < 90 after fluid challenge; the "SHOCK" cohort, n = 58), (2) a sepsis without shock cohort (the "SEPSIS" cohort, n = 60) and emergency department patients without infection (n = 50). We measured the StO? initial, StO? occlusion and StO? recovery slopes for all patients. Outcomes were sepsis syndrome severity, organ dysfunction (SOFA score at 24 hours) and in-hospital mortality.Among the 168 patients enrolled, mean initial StO? was lower in the SHOCK cohort than in the SEPSIS cohort (76% vs 81%), with an impaired occlusion slope (-10.2 and 5.2%/minute vs -13.1 and 4.4%/minute) and an impaired recovery slope (2.4 and 1.6%/second vs 3.9 and 1.7%/second) (P < 0.001 for all). The recovery slope was well-correlated with SOFA score at 24 hours (-0.35; P < 0.001), with a promising area under the curve (AUC) for mortality of 0.81. The occlusion slope correlation with SOFA score at 24 hours was 0.21 (P < 0.02), with a fair mortality AUC of 0.70. The initial StO? was significantly but less strongly correlated with SOFA score at 24 hours (-0.18; P < 0.04), with a poor mortality AUC of 0.56.NIRS measurements for the StO? initial, StO? occlusion and StO? recovery slope were abnormal in patients with septic shock compared to sepsis patients. The recovery slope was most strongly associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. Further validation is warranted.NCT01062685.
| S-EPMC3334769 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8210661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.
| S-EPMC6921192 | 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:We investigated the effect of antibiotic timing on outcomes based on changes in surrogate markers of organ failure, including platelet, serum bilirubin, serum creatinine levels, and the PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F) ratio. This was a single-center, retrospective observational study of critically ill septic patients who presented to the emergency department (ED). The study period extended from August 2008 to September 2016. The primary outcomes included changes in platelet, serum bilirubin, serum creatinine levels, and the P/F ratio (δ-platelet, δ-serum bilirubin, δ-serum creatinine, and δ-P/F ratio were calculated as values measured on Day 3; values measured at ED enrollment). A multivariable linear regression model was developed to assess variables related to outcomes (δ-platelet, δ-serum bilirubin, δ-serum creatinine, and δ-P/F ratio). We analyzed 1784 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The overall 28-day mortality was 14% (n = 256/1784). On multivariable linear regression analysis, the hourly delay in antibiotic therapy was significantly associated with a decrease in δ-platelet count (coefficient, -1.741; standard error, 0.740; p = 0.019), and an increase in δ-serum bilirubin (coefficient, 0.054; standard error, 0.021; p = 0.009). In contrast, it was not associated with δ-creatinine (coefficient, 0.008; standard error, 0.010; p = 0.434) or the δ-P/F ratio (coefficient, -0.797; standard error, 1.858; p = 0.668). The hourly delay of antibiotic therapy was associated with decreased platelet count and increased serum bilirubin concentration in critically ill septic patients during the first three days of ED admission.
| S-EPMC6406307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBacteraemia is associated with high morbidity and mortality, with delayed antibiotic treatment associated with poorer outcomes. Early identification is challenging, but clinically important. Multiple scoring systems have been developed to identify individuals in the broader categories of sepsis. We designed this study to assess the performance of existing scoring systems and pathways-CEC SEPSIS KILLS pathway (an Australian sepsis care package), quick sequential organ failure score (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and the Shapiro criteria.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study performed in two metropolitan hospitals in NSW, consisting of adult patients (> 18 years) with positive blood cultures containing a true pathogen and patients matched by age without positive blood cultures. Performance (sensitivity, specificity, and mortality prediction) of recognised sepsis and bacteraemia criteria and pathways-qSOFA, SIRS, Shapiro criteria and CEC SEPSIS KILLS pathway in the first 4 h following ED triage was assessed.ResultsThere were 251 patients in each cohort. Sepsis-related mortality was higher in the bacteraemic group (OR 0.4, p = 0.03). Of the criteria studied, the modified Shapiro criteria had the highest sensitivity (88%) with modest specificity (37.85%), and qSOFA had the highest specificity (83.67%) with poor sensitivity (19.82%). SIRS had reasonable sensitivity (82.07%), with poor sensitivity (20.72%). The CEC SEPSIS pathway sensitivity of 70.1% and specificity of 71.1%. The SEPSIS KILLS was activated on only 14% of bacteraemic patients.ConclusionThe performance of all scoring systems and pathways was suboptimal in the identification of patients at risk of bacteraemia presenting to the emergency department.
| S-EPMC8783440 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5466747 | biostudies-literature