Dataset Information

Comparison of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in predicting bacteremia in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The emergency department requires simple and useful clinical indicators to identify bacteremia. This retrospective study explored the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores for predicting bacteremia.

Methods

Between April and September 2017, we assessed blood cultures of 307 patients in our emergency department. We calculated the SIRS and qSOFA scores for these patients and evaluated their correlation with bacteremia.

Results

Of 307 patients, 66 (21.5%) had bacteremia, 237 (77.2%) were SIRS-positive, and 123 (40.0%) were qSOFA-positive. The sensitivity and specificity of the SIRS score for predicting bacteremia were 87.9% and 25.7%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the qSOFA score were 47.0% and 61.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that body temperature (odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.84; P = 0.009) and blood pressure (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-5.35; P = 0.004) significantly associated with bacteremia.

Conclusions

The SIRS score was a more sensitive indicator than the qSOFA score for predicting bacteremia.

SUBMITTER: Furuta K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8088398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEarly identification of sepsis is critical to improving patient outcomes. Impact of the new sepsis definition (Sepsis-3) on timing of recognition in the emergency department has not been evaluated. Our study objective was to compare time to meeting systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Sepsis-2) criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (Sepsis-3) criteria, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria using electronic health record data.DesignRetrospective, observational study.SettingThe emergency department at the University of California, San Francisco.PatientsEmergency department encounters between June 2012 and December 2016 for patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with blood cultures ordered, IV antibiotic receipt, and identification with sepsis via systemic inflammatory response syndrome or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment within 72 hours of emergency department presentation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe analyzed timestamped electronic health record data from 16,612 encounters identified as sepsis by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria or a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 2. The primary outcome was time from emergency department presentation to meeting greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and/or greater than or equal to 2 quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria. There were 9,087 patients (54.7%) that met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first a median of 26 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 0-109 min), with 83.1% meeting Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria a median of 118 minutes later (interquartile range, 44-401 min). There were 7,037 patients (42.3%) that met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first, a median of 113 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 60-251 min). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was met in 46.4% of patients a median of 351 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 67-1,165 min). Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were 39% greater in patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first compared with those who met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.20-1.61).ConclusionsSystemic inflammatory response syndrome and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment initially identified distinct populations. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome resulted in earlier electronic health record sepsis identification in greater than 50% of patients. Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone may delay identification. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome alone may lead to missed sepsis presenting as acute organ dysfunction. Thus, a combination of inflammatory (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) and organ dysfunction (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) criteria may enhance timely electronic health record-based sepsis identification.

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:ObjectivesThe aim was to describe population-based incidence and emergency department-based prevalence and 1-year all-cause mortality of patients with new organ failure present at arrival.DesignThis was a population-based cohort study of all citizens in four municipalities (population of 230?000 adults).SettingEmergency department at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.ParticipantsWe included all adult patients who arrived from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2015.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOrgan failure was defined as a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score?2 within six possible organ systems: cerebral, circulatory, renal, respiratory, hepatic and coagulation.The primary outcome was prevalence of organ failure, and secondary outcomes were 0-7?days, 8-30?days and 31-365?days all-cause mortality.ResultsWe identified in total 175?278 contacts, of which 70?399 contacts were further evaluated for organ failure. Fifty-two per cent of these were women, median age 62 (IQR 42-77) years. The incidence of new organ failure was 1342/100 000 person-years, corresponding to 5.2% of all emergency department contacts.The 0-7-day, 8-30-day and 31-365-day mortality was 11.0% (95% CI: 10.2% to 11.8%), 5.6% (95% CI: 5.1% to 6.2%) and 13.2% (95% CI: 12.3% to 14.1%), respectively, if the patient had one or more new organ failures at first contact in the observation period, compared with 1.4% (95% CI: 1.3% to 1.6%), 1.2% (95% CI: 1.1% to 1.3%) and 5.2% (95% CI: 5.0% to 5.4%) for patients without. Seven-day mortality ranged from hepatic failure, 6.5% (95% CI: 4.9% to 8.6%), to cerebral failure, 33.8% (95% CI: 31.0% to 36.8%), the 8-30-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.8% to 5.3%), to hepatic failure, 8.6% (95% CI: 6.6% to 10.8%) and 31-365-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 9.3% (95% CI: 7.6% to 11.2%), to renal failure, 18.2% (95% CI: 15.5% to 21.1%).ConclusionsThe study revealed an incidence of new organ failure at 1342/100 000 person-years and a prevalence of 5.2% of all emergency department contacts. One-year all-cause mortality was 29.8% among organ failure patients.