Dataset Information

Predictive Value of 3 Clinical Criteria for Sepsis (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, and National Early Warning Score) With Respect to Short-term Mortality in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients With Suspected Infections.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sepsis disproportionately affects allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients and is challenging to define. Clinical criteria that predict mortality and intensive care unit end-points in patients with suspected infections (SIs) are used in sepsis definitions, but their predictive value among immunocompromised populations is largely unknown. Here, we evaluate 3 criteria among allogeneic HCT recipients with SIs.

Methods

We evaluated Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) in relation to short-term mortality among recipients transplanted between September 2010 and July 2017. We used cut-points of ≥ 2 for qSOFA/SIRS and ≥ 7 for NEWS and restricted to first SI per hospital encounter during patients' first 100 days posttransplant.

Results

Of the 880 recipients who experienced ≥ 1 SI, 58 (6.6%) died within 28 days and 22 (2.5%) within 10 days of an SI. In relation to 10-day mortality, SIRS was the most sensitive (91.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 72.0%-98.9%]) but least specific (35.0% [95% CI, 32.6%-37.5%]), whereas qSOFA was the most specific (90.5% [95% CI, 88.9%-91.9%]) but least sensitive (47.8% [95% CI, 26.8%-69.4%]). NEWS was moderately sensitive (78.3% [95% CI, 56.3%-92.5%]) and specific (70.2% [95% CI, 67.8%-72.4%]).

Conclusions

NEWS outperformed qSOFA and SIRS, but each criterion had low to moderate predictive accuracy, and the magnitude of the known limitations of qSOFA and SIRS was at least as large as in the general population. Our data suggest that population-specific criteria are needed for immunocompromised patients.

SUBMITTER: Lind ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8028104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. PATIENTS:Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0?mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/?L (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS:The Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The Sepsis III clinical criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis rely on scores derived to predict inhospital mortality. In this study, we introduce the novel outcome of "received critical care intervention" and investigate the related predictive performance of both the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria. DESIGN:This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of electronic health records. SETTING:Tertiary care hospital in the United States. PATIENTS:Patients with suspected infection who presented to the emergency department and were admitted to the hospital between January 2010 and December 2014. INTERVENTIONS:Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were calculated, and their relationships to the receipt of critical care intervention and inhospital mortality were determined. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 24,164 patients were included of whom 6,693 (27.7%) were admitted to an ICU within 48 hours; 4,453 (66.5%) patients admitted to the ICU received a critical care intervention. Among those with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment less than 2, 13.4% received a critical care intervention and 3.5% died compared with 48.2% and 13.4%, respectively, for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was similar whether quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was used to predict receipt of critical care intervention or inhospital mortality (0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.74] vs 0.71 [0.69-0.72]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome for critical care intervention (0.69) and mortality (0.66) was lower than that for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (p < 0.001 for both outcomes). The sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for predicting critical care intervention was 38%. CONCLUSIONS:Emergency department patients with suspected infection and low quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores frequently receive critical care interventions. The misclassification of these patients as "low risk," in combination with the low sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, may diminish the clinical utility of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.

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.

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: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.

Project description:Background and importanceSepsis is a common and potentially lethal syndrome, and early recognition is critical to prevent deterioration. Yet, currently available scores to facilitate recognition of sepsis lack prognostic accuracy.ObjectiveTo identify the optimal time-point to determine NEWS, qSOFA and SIRS for the prediction of clinical deterioration in early sepsis and to determine whether the change in these scores over time improves their prognostic accuracy.DesignPost hoc analysis of prospectively collected data.Settings and participantsThis study was performed in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Adult medical patients with (potential) sepsis were included.Outcome measures and analysisThe primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 72 h after admission, defined as organ failure development, the composite outcome of ICU-admission and death. Secondary outcomes were the composite of ICU-admission/death and a rise in SOFA at least 2. Scores were calculated at the ED with 30-min intervals. ROC analyses were constructed to compare the prognostic accuracy of the scores.ResultsIn total, 1750 patients were included, of which 360 (20.6%) deteriorated and 79 (4.5%) went to the ICU or died within 72 h. The NEWS at triage (AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.65) had a higher accuracy than qSOFA (AUC, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) and SIRS (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) for predicting deterioration. The AUC of the NEWS at 1 h (0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69) and 150 min after triage (0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68) was higher than the AUC of the NEWS at triage. The qSOFA had the highest AUC at 90 min after triage (0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.65), whereas the SIRS had the highest AUC at 60 min after triage (0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63); both are not significantly different from triage. The NEWS had a better accuracy to predict ICU-admission/death <72 h compared with qSOFA (AUC difference, 0.092) and SIRS (AUC difference, 0.137). No differences were found for the prediction of a rise in SOFA at least 2 within 72 h between the scores. Patients with the largest improvement in any of the scores were more prone to deteriorate.ConclusionNEWS had a higher prognostic accuracy to predict deterioration compared with SIRS and qSOFA; the highest accuracy was reached at 1 h after triage.