The Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment Score in Brazil: Insights for Future Use in Diverse Settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: DeMerle KM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7124709 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1-87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0-93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2-71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9-18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5-43.3).Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).
| S-EPMC7124712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study.ResultsAmong the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00-1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h.ConclusionsqSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions.
| S-EPMC10804657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the prognostic ability of systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) combine with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, with the population comprised in whom sepsis was confirmed. Clinical and laboratory data recorded were analyzed. The score of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), SII, qSOFA were calculated. Multivariable regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kaplan-Meier method were used to identify and compared the predictors of prognosis among SOFA, qSOFA, and the combination of SII with qSOFA.ResultsA total of 349 patients admitted from December 2020 and December 2022 were included in the cohort. 95 (27.2%) of whom had died by day 28. The SII, SOFA, and qSOFA scores were significant higher in the non-survivors than that of survivors (P < 0.05), and identified as independent predictors of sepsis mortality. The addition of SII to qSOFA shown an area under receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.787-0.884), manifested an effective ability in predicting poor outcome than other scoring systems. The optimum cutoff for SII (>1.7668) and qSOFA (>1) represented a high risk level in 28-day mortality of sepsis, were performed and identified in Kaplan-Meier survival curves (log-rank test, HR: 6.942, 95% CI: 3.976-12.121; P < 0.0001).ConclusionThe SII in addition to qSOFA provided an effective prognostic tool for predicting mortality in sepsis.
| S-EPMC10558729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimInfective endocarditis (IE) can be life-threatening because of various associated adverse events. The quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is a straightforward useful method for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with suspected infections. However, few data exist regarding the clinical impact of the qSOFA score on predicting adverse events in IE during hospitalization. We studied the usefulness of qSOFA score for predicting in-hospital adverse events in patients with IE.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 104 consecutive patients diagnosed with IE on the basis of modified Duke criteria. We defined in-hospital adverse events as occurrence of any of the following events during hospitalization: death, embolism, hemorrhage, or abscess formation. The high qSOFA group was defined as those with a qSOFA score ≥2. We used Cox regression analysis to estimate the hazard ratio for high qSOFA score on in-hospital adverse events adjusted for age, sex, and Staphylococcus aureus infection.ResultsWe analyzed 83 patients (57 men, mean age 61 ± 18 years) from the total cohort of 104 patients enrolled. Among these, 12 (14.5%) had high qSOFA scores. The high qSOFA group had higher in-hospital mortality compared to the low qSOFA group (50.0% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.01). In the Cox proportional hazards model, high qSOFA was significantly associated with in-hospital adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29; confidence interval, 1.02-5.12; P = 0.044).ConclusionThese results showed that high qSOFA score was significantly associated with in-hospital adverse events in IE patients, although further prospective study is necessary to confirm our results.
| S-EPMC6442521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Triage of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at high risk of in-hospital complications is essential. In this study, we evaluated the quick sepsis organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score as a tool for predicting the prognosis of 964 patients admitted to the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) with ACS over a 4-year period. In total, out of 964 patients included, with a percentage of 4.6% for 30-day mortality. The risk of 30-day mortality was independently associated with qSOFA ≥ 2 at admission (hazard ratio = 2.76, 95% CI 1.32-5.74, p = 0.007). For MACEs, qSOFA ≥ 2 at admission was a predictive factor with (odds ratio = 2.42, 95% CI 1.37-4.36, p = .002). A qSOFA ≥ 2 on admission had an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI [0.694, 0.762]), with a good specificity of 91.6%. For 30-day mortality, an AUC of 0.759 (95%CI [0.726, 0.792]) for cardiogenic shock with specificity of 92.5%. For MACEs, an AUC of 0.702 (95% CI [0.64, 0.700] with a specificity of 95%. Concerning the different scores tested, we found no significant difference between the Zwolle score and the qSOFA score for predicting prognosis, whereas the CADILLAC score was better than qSOFA for predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = 0.829 and De long test = 0.03). However, there was no difference between qSOFA and CADILLAC scores for predicting cardiogenic shock (De Long test at 0.08). This is the first study to evaluate qSOFA as a predictive score for 30-day mortality and MACEs, and the results are very encouraging, particularly for cardiogenic shock.
| S-EPMC10718056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam.MethodsWe did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models.ResultsOf 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671).ConclusionIn our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings.Clinical trial registrationClinical trials registry-India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.
| S-EPMC9565713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012. PATIENTS:All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.
| S-EPMC6309444 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7063937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite on-going advances in medical treatment, the burden of disease of pneumonia remains high. We aimed to determine the association of the qSOFA score with in-hospital mortality, length of hospitalisation, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) in patients with pneumonia. Further, in a subgroup analysis, the outcomes were compared for qSOFA in comparison to other risk scores, including the CURB-65 and SIRS scores.In a retrospective analysis, admission data from the ED of the Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, were screened to identify patients admitted for pneumonia. In addition to clinical characteristics, qSOFA and CURB-65 scores and SIRS criteria were assessed and evaluated with respect to the defined study outcomes.527 patients (median age 66 IQR 50-76) were included in this study. The overall in-hospital mortality was 13.3% (n = 70); 22.0% (n = 116) were transferred to the ICU. The median length of hospitalisation was 7 days (IQR 4-12). In comparison to qSOFA-negative patients, qSOFA-positive patients had increased odds ratios for in-hospital mortality (OR 2.6, 95%:1.4, 4.7, p<0.001) and ICU admission (3.5, 95% CI: 2.0. 5.8, p<0.001) and an increased length of stay (p<0.001). For ICU admission, the specificity of qSOPA-positivity (?2) was 82.1% and sensitivity 43.0%. For in-hospital mortality, the specificity of qSOPA-positivity (?2) was 88.9% and sensitivity 24.4%. In the subgroup analysis (n = 366). The area under the receiver operating curve for ICU admission was higher for qSOFA than for the CURB-65 score (p = 0.013). The evaluated scores did not differ significantly in their prognostication of in-hospital mortality (p>0.05).The qSOFA score is associated with in-hospital mortality, ICU admission and length of hospitalisation in ED patients with pneumonia. Subgroup analysis revealed that qSOFA is superior to CURB-65 in respect to prognostication of ICU admission.
| S-EPMC5739400 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8282038 | biostudies-literature