Dataset Information

Predicting mortality in adult patients with sepsis in the emergency department by using combinations of biomarkers and clinical scoring systems: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sepsis can be detected in an early stage in the emergency department (ED) by biomarkers and clinical scoring systems. A combination of multiple biomarkers or biomarker with clinical scoring system might result in a higher predictive value on mortality. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the available literature on combinations of biomarkers and clinical scoring systems on 1-month mortality in patients with sepsis in the ED.

Methods

We performed a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Articles were included if they evaluated at least one biomarker combined with another biomarker or clinical scoring system and reported the prognostic accuracy on 28 or 30 day mortality by area under the curve (AUC) in patients with sepsis. We did not define biomarker cut-off values in advance.

Results

We included 18 articles in which a total of 35 combinations of biomarkers and clinical scoring systems were studied, of which 33 unique combinations. In total, seven different clinical scoring systems and 21 different biomarkers were investigated. The combination of procalcitonin (PCT), lactate, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score-2 (SAPS-2) resulted in the highest AUC on 1-month mortality.

Conclusion

The studies we found in this systematic review were too heterogeneous to conclude that a certain combination it should be used in the ED to predict 1-month mortality in patients with sepsis. Future studies should focus on clinical scoring systems which require a limited amount of clinical parameters, such as the qSOFA score in combination with a biomarker that is already routinely available in the ED.

SUBMITTER: Tong-Minh K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8201689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p = 0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p = 0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p = 0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p = 0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p = 0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.

Project description:ObjectiveOlder emergency department (ED) patients are at high risk of mortality, and it is important to predict which patients are at highest risk. Biomarkers such as lactate, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), D-dimer and procalcitonin may be able to identify those at risk. We aimed to assess the discriminatory value of these biomarkers for 30-day mortality and other adverse outcomes.DesignProspective cohort study. On arrival of patients, five biomarkers were measured. Area under the curves (AUCs) and interval likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated to investigate the discriminatory value of the biomarkers.SettingED in the Netherlands.ParticipantsOlder (≥65 years) medical ED patients, referred for internal medicine or gastroenterology.Primary and secondary outcome measures30-day mortality was the primary outcome measure, while other adverse outcomes (intensive care unit/medium care unit admission, prolonged length of hospital stay, loss of independent living and unplanned readmission) were the composite secondary outcome measure.ResultsThe median age of the 450 included patients was 79 years (IQR 73-85). In total, 51 (11.3%) patients died within 30 days. The AUCs of all biomarkers for prediction of mortality were sufficient to good, with the highest AUC of 0.73 for hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP. Only for the highest lactate values, the LR was high enough (29.0) to be applicable for clinical decision making, but this applied to a minority of patients. The AUC for the composite secondary outcome (intensive and medium care admission, length of hospital stay >7 days, loss of independent living and unplanned readmission within 30 days) was lower, ranging between 0.58 and 0.67.ConclusionsAlthough all five biomarkers predict 30-day mortality in older medical ED patients, their individual discriminatory value was not high enough to contribute to clinical decision making.Trial registration numberNCT02946398; Results.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been widely spread and caused tens of thousands of deaths, especially in patients with severe COVID-19. This analysis aimed to explore risk factors for mortality of severe COVID-19, and establish a scoring system to predict in-hospital deaths.MethodsPatients with COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed and clinical characteristics were compared. LASSO regression as well as multivariable analysis were used to screen variables and establish prediction model.FindingsA total of 2529 patients with COVID-19 was retrospectively analyzed, and 452 eligible severe COVID-19 were used for finally analysis. In training cohort, the median age was 66•0 years while it was 73•0 years in non-survivors. Patients aged 60-75 years accounted for the largest proportion of infected populations and mortality toll. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were monitored up to 54 days, and IgG levels reached the highest during 20-30 days. No differences were observed of antibody levels between severe and non-severe patients. About 60.2% of severe patients had complications. Among acute myocardial injury (AMI), acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute liver injury (ALI), the heart was the earliest injured organ, whereas the time from AKI to death was the shortest. Age, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), percentage of lymphocytes (LYM%), procalcitonin (PCT), serum urea, C reactive protein and D-dimer (DD), were identified associated with mortality by LASSO binary logistic regression. Then multivariable analysis was performed to conclude that old age, CHD, LYM%, PCT and DD remained independent risk factors for mortality. Based on the above variables, a scoring system of COVID-19 (CSS) was established to divide patients into low-risk and high-risk groups. This model displayed good discrimination (AUC=0·919) and calibration (P=0·264). Complications in low-risk and high-risk groups were significantly different (P<0·05). Use of corticosteroids in low-risk groups increased hospital stays by 4·5 days (P=0·036) and durations of disease by 7·5 days (P=0·012) compared with no corticosteroids.InterpretationOld age, CHD, LYM%, PCT and DD were independently related to mortality. CSS was useful for predicting in-hospital mortality and complications, and it could help clinicians to identify high-risk patients with poor prognosis.FundingThis work was supported by the Key Project for Anti-2019 novel Coronavirus Pneumonia from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China (grant number 2020YFC0845500).