Dataset Information

Relationship between the prehospital quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and prognosis in patients with sepsis or suspected sepsis: a population-based ORION registry.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was proposed for use as a simple screening tool for sepsis. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between the prehospital use of qSOFA and prognosis in patients with sepsis or suspected sepsis using the population-based Osaka Emergency Information Research Intelligent Operation Network (ORION) registry, which compiles prehospital ambulance data and in-hospital information.

Methods

The study enrolled 437,974 patients in the ORION registry from January 1 to December 31, 2016. We selected hospitalized patients with sepsis or suspected sepsis using the appropriate codes from the International Classification of Diseases revision 10. We excluded patients with: (i) missing data (outcome, Japan Coma Scale, respiratory rate, and blood pressure); (ii) respiratory rate ≥60/min; and (iii) blood pressure ≥250 mmHg. These measures were evaluated by ambulance personnel when they first contacted the patient in the prehospital setting. The primary end-point was discharge to death.

Results

In total, 12,646 patients (median age, 78 [interquartile range, 65-85] years; male, n = 6,760 [53.5%]) were eligible for our analysis. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors, the proportion of patients discharged to death was significantly higher for those evaluated as qSOFA positive (≥2 points) than qSOFA negative (≤1 point) (265/2,250 [11.78%] vs. 415/10,396 [3.99%]; adjusted odds ratio 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-3.43; P < 0.0001). The specificity and sensitivity were 83.4% and 39.0%, respectively, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for qSOFA positive was 0.61.

Conclusions

The qSOFA evaluated by ambulance personnel in the prehospital setting was significantly associated with prognosis in patients with sepsis or suspected sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Hirose T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) was chosen in the definition of sepsis due to superior validity in predicting mortality. However, few studies have assessed the contributions of acute versus chronic organ failures to SOFA for mortality prediction.ObjectivesThe main objective in this study was to assess the relative importance of chronic and acute organ failures in mortality prediction in patients with suspected sepsis at hospital admission. We also evaluated how the presence of infection influenced the ability of SOFA to predict 30-day mortality.Design setting and participantsSingle-center prospective cohort study including 1,313 adult patients with suspected sepsis in rapid response teams in the emergency department.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was 30-day mortality. We measured the maximum total SOFA score during admission (SOFATotal), whereas preexisting chronic organ failure SOFA (SOFAChronic) score was assessed by chart review, allowing calculation of the corresponding acute SOFA (SOFAAcute) score. Likelihood of infection was determined post hoc as "No infection" or "Infection."ResultsSOFAAcute and SOFAChronic were both associated with 30-day mortality, adjusted for age and sex (adjusted odds ratios [AORs], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14 and 1.3; 1.2-1.7), respectively. Presence of infection was associated with lower 30-day mortality (AOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6), even when corrected for SOFA. In "No infection" patients, SOFAAcute was not associated with mortality (AOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2), and in this subgroup, neither SOFAAcute greater than or equal to 2 (relative risk [RR], 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8) nor SOFATotal greater than or equal to 2 (RR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.9-14.1) was associated with higher mortality.Conclusions and relevanceChronic and acute organ failures were equally associated with 30-day mortality in suspected sepsis. A substantial part of the total SOFA score was due to chronic organ failure, calling for caution when using total SOFA in defining sepsis and as an outcome in intervention studies. SOFA's mortality prediction ability was highly dependent on actual presence of infection.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether adding lactate to the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) improves the prediction of mortality in adult hospital patients, compared with qSOFA alone.DesignSystematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL and Open Grey databases were searched in November 2020.Eligibility criteriaOriginal research studies published after 2016 comparing qSOFA in combination with lactate (LqSOFA) with qSOFA alone in adult patients with sepsis in hospital. The language was restricted to English.Data extraction and synthesisTitle and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Extracted data were collected into tables and diagnostic test accuracy was compared between the two tests.ResultsWe identified 1621 studies, of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. Overall, there was a low risk of bias across all studies. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for qSOFA was improved by the addition of lactate in 9 of the 10 studies reporting it. Sensitivity was increased in three of seven studies that reported it. Specificity was increased in four of seven studies that reported it. Of the six studies set exclusively within the emergency department, five published AUROCs, all of which reported an increase following the addition of lactate. Sensitivity and specificity results varied throughout the included studies. Due to insufficient data and heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis was not performed.ConclusionsLqSOFA is an effective tool for identifying mortality risk both in adult inpatients with sepsis and those in the emergency department. LqSOFA increases AUROC over qSOFA alone, particularly within the emergency department. However, further original research is required to provide a stronger base of evidence in lactate measurement timing, as well as prospective trials to strengthen evidence and reduce bias.Prospero registration numberCRD42020207648.