Diagnostic Performance of Procalcitonin for the Early Identification of Sepsis in Patients with Elevated qSOFA Score at Emergency Admission.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bolanaki M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432218 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To investigate whether procalcitonin (PCT) can improve the performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in predicting sepsis mortality, we conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study with independent validation in a prospectively collected cohort in 3 tertiary medical centers. Patients with presumed sepsis were included. Serum PCT levels were measured at admission. Quick SOFA score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria were calculated for each patient. PCT levels were assigned into 0, 1, and 2 points for a serum level of <0.25, 0.25 to 2, and >2 ng/mL, and added to the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. The incremental value of PCT to qSOFA was then evaluated by logistic regression, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and reclassification analysis.In all, 1318 patients with presumed severe infection were enrolled with a 30-day mortality of 13.5%. Serum level of PCT showed a high correlation with qSOFA score and 30-day inhospital mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.56 for SIRS criteria, 0.67 for qSOFA score, and 0.73 for qSOFA_PCT in predicting 30-day mortality. The risk prediction improvement was reflected by a net reclassification improvement of 35% (17%-52%). Incorporation of PCT into the qSOFA model could raise the sensitivity to 86.5% (95% confidence interval 80.6%-91.2%). In the validation cohort, qSOFA_PCT greatly improved the sensitivity to 90.9%.A simple modification of qSOFA score by adding the ordinal scale of PCT value to qSOFA could greatly improve the suboptimal sensitivity problem of qSOFA and may serve as a quick screening tool for early identification of sepsis.
| S-EPMC6571275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:In hospitalized patients, the risk of sepsis-related mortality can be assessed using the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). Currently, different tools that predict deterioration such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) have been introduced in clinical practice in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. It remains ambiguous which screening tool for mortality at the ED is best. The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance for mortality of two sepsis-based scores (i.e. qSOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS)-criteria) compared to the more general NEWS score, in patients with suspected infection directly at presentation to the ED. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients who presented to the ED between June 2012 and May 2016 with suspected sepsis in a large tertiary care center were included. Suspected sepsis was defined as initiation of intravenous antibiotics and/or collection of any culture in the ED. Outcome was defined as 10-day and 30-day mortality after ED presentation. Predictive performance was expressed as discrimination (AUC) and calibration using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Subsequently, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. RESULTS:In total 8,204 patients were included of whom 286 (3.5%) died within ten days and 490 (6.0%) within 30 days after presentation. NEWS had the best performance, followed by qSOFA and SIRS (10-day AUC: 0.837, 0.744, 0.646, 30-day AUC: 0.779, 0.697, 0.631). qSOFA (?2) lacked a high sensitivity versus SIRS (?2) and NEWS (?7) (28.5%, 77.2%, 68.0%), whilst entailing highest specificity versus NEWS and SIRS (93.7%, 66.5%, 37.6%). CONCLUSIONS:NEWS is more accurate in predicting 10- and 30-day mortality than qSOFA and SIRS in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.
| S-EPMC6347138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The initial presentation of sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is difficult to distinguish from other acute illnesses based upon similar clinical presentations. A new blood parameter, a measurement of increased monocyte volume distribution width (MDW), may be used in combination with other clinical parameters to improve early sepsis detection. We sought to determine if MDW, when combined with other available clinical parameters at the time of ED presentation, improves the early detection of sepsis. Methods:A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data available during the initial ED encounter of 2158 adult patients who were enrolled from emergency departments of three major academic centers, of which 385 fulfilled Sepsis-2 criteria, and 243 fulfilled Sepsis-3 criteria within 12?h of admission. Sepsis probabilities were determined based on MDW values, alone or in combination with components of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score obtained during the initial patient presentation (i.e., within 2?h of ED admission). Results:Abnormal MDW (>?20.0) consistently increased sepsis probability, and normal MDW consistently reduced sepsis probability when used in combination with SIRS criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, abnormal white blood count, or body temperature) or qSOFA criteria (tachypnea, altered mental status, but not hypotension). Overall, and regardless of other SIRS or qSOFA variables, MDW >?20.0 (vs. MDW ??20.0) at the time of the initial ED encounter was associated with an approximately 6-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-2, and an approximately 4-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-3. Conclusions:MDW improves the early detection of sepsis during the initial ED encounter and is complementary to SIRS and qSOFA parameters that are currently used for this purpose. This study supports the incorporation of MDW with other readily available clinical parameters during the initial ED encounter for the early detection of sepsis. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145428. First posted May 9, 2017. The first subjects were enrolled June 19, 2017, and the study completion date was January 26, 2018.
| S-EPMC7201542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of qSOFA as a risk stratification tool for patients admitted with infection compared to traditional SIRS criteria or our triage system; the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS).MethodsThe study was an observational cohort study performed at one Emergency Department (ED) in an urban university teaching hospital in Norway, with approximately 20,000 visits per year. All patients >16 years presenting with symptoms or clinical signs suggesting an infection (n = 1535) were prospectively included in the study from January 1 to December 31, 2012. At arrival in the ED, vital signs were recorded and all patients were triaged according to RETTS vital signs, presenting infection, and sepsis symptoms. These admission data were also used to calculate qSOFA and SIRS. Treatment outcome was later retrieved from the patients' electronic records (EPR) and mortality data from the Norwegian population registry.ResultsOf the 1535 admitted patients, 108 (7.0%) fulfilled the Sepsis2 criteria for severe sepsis. The qSOFA score ≥2 identified only 33 (sensitivity 0.32, specificity 0.98) of the patients with severe sepsis, whilst the RETTS-alert ≥ orange identified 92 patients (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.55). Twenty-six patients died within 7 days of admission; four (15.4%) of them had a qSOFA ≥2, and 16 (61.5%) had RETTS ≥ orange alert. Of the 68 patients that died within 30 days, only eight (11.9%) scored ≥2 on the qSOFA, and 45 (66.1%) had a RETTS ≥ orange alert.DiscussionIn order to achieve timely treatment for sepsis, a sensitive screening tool is more important than a specific one. Our study is the fourth study were qSOFA finds few of the sepsis cases in prehospital or at arrival to the ED. We add information on the RETTS triage system, the two highest acuity levels together had a high sensitivity (85%) for identifying sepsis at arrival to the ED - and thus, RETTS should not be replaced by qSOFA as a screening and trigger tool for sepsis at arrival.ConclusionIn this observational cohort study, qSOFA failed to identify two thirds of the patients admitted to an ED with severe sepsis. Further, qSOFA failed to be a risk stratification tool as the sensitivity to predict 7-day and 30-day mortality was low. The sensitivity was poorer than the other warning scores already in use at the study site, RETTS-triage and the SIRS criteria.
| S-EPMC5466747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study was aimed to evaluate the performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) in predicting the emergency department (ED) mortality of non-trauma patients and to expand the application scope of qSOFA score.MethodsA single, retrospective review of non-trauma patients was conducted in ED between November 1, 2016 and November 1, 2019. The qSOFA score was obtained from vital signs and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. The outcome was ED mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the association between the qSOFA score and ED mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, the best cutoff value, sensitivity and specificity were performed to ascertain the predictive value of the qSOFA score.Results228(1.96%) of the 11621 patients were died. The qSOFA score was statistically higher in the non-survival group (P<0.001). The qSOFA score 0 subgroup was used as reference baseline, after adjusting for gender and age, adjusted OR of 1, 2 and 3 subgroups were 4.77 (95%CI 3.40 to 6.70), 18.17 (95%CI 12.49 to 26.44) and 23.63 (95%CI 9.54 to 58.52). All these three subgroups show significantly higher ED mortality compared to qSOFA 0 subgroup (P<0.001). AUROC of qSOFA score was 0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79). The best cutoff value was 0, sensitivity was 77.63% (95%CI 71.7% to 82.9%), and specificity was 67.2% (95%CI 66.3% to 68.1%).ConclusionThe qSOFA score was associated with ED mortality in non-trauma patients and showed good prognostic performance. It can be used as a general tool to evaluate non-trauma patients in ED. This is just a retrospective cohort study, a prospective or a randomized study will be required.
| S-EPMC7904145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: For early recognition of patients with sepsis, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was proposed by Sepsis-3 criteria as initial sepsis identification outside of intensive care units. However, the new definition has subsequently led to controversy and prompted much discussion for delayed treatment efforts. We aimed to validate Sepsis-3 criteria on bacteremia patients by investigating prognostic impacts of inappropriate administration of empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) and delayed source control (SC) compared to Sepsis-2 criteria. Methods: In the multicenter cohort of adults with community-onset bacteremia in emergency departments (EDs), adverse effects of delayed treatment efforts on 30-day mortality were examined in septic and non-septic patients by fulfilling the Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3 criteria using the Cox regression model after adjusting independent determinants of mortality. Results: Of the 3,898 total adults, septic patients accounted for 92.8% (3,619 patients) by Sepsis-2 criteria (i.e., SIRS criteria). Using Sepsis-3 criteria, 1,827 (46.9%) patients were diagnosed with early sepsis (i.e., initial qSOFA scores ≥ 2) in EDs and 2,622 (67.3%) with sepsis during hospitalization (i.e., increased SOFA scores of ≥ 2 from ED arrival). The prognostic impacts of inappropriate EAT or delayed SC (for complicated bacteremia) were both significant in septic patients with fulfilling the Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3 (i.e., SOFA) criteria, respectively. Meanwhile, these delayed treatment efforts trivially impact prognoses of non-septic patients recognized by the Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3 (i.e., SOFA) definitions. Notably, prognostic effects of inappropriate EAT or delayed SC were disclosed for septic patients in EDs, specifically those with qSOFA scores of ≥ 2, and prognostic impacts of delayed treatment efforts remained significant for patients initially recognized early as being non-septic (i.e., initial qSOFA scores of <2). Conclusions: For patients with community-onset bacteremia, inappropriate EAT and delayed SC might result in unfavorable outcomes of patients early identified as being non-septic on ED arrival based on the qSOFA scores (by Sepsis-3 criteria). Accordingly, a more prudent diagnosis of sepsis adopted among bacteremia patients in the ED is necessary.
| S-EPMC8563787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sepsis is a global healthcare problem, characterized by whole body inflammation in response to microbial infection, which leads to organ dysfunction. It is becoming a frequent complication in hospitalized patients. Early and differential diagnosis of sepsis is needed critically to avoid unnecessary usage of antimicrobial agents and for proper antibiotic treatments through the screening of biomarkers that sustains with diagnostic significance.Current targeting conventional markers (C-reactive protein, white blood cell, tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukins, etc.) are non-specific for diagnosing sepsis. Procalcitonin (PCT), a member of the calcitonin super family could be a critical tool for the diagnosis of sepsis. But to distinguish between bacterial versus viral infections, procalcitonin alone may not be effective. Rapid elevation in the concentration of procalcitonin and other newly emerging biomarkers during an infection and its correlation with severity of illness makes it an ideal biomarker for bacterial infection. Beside this, the procalcitonin levels can be used for monitoring response to antimicrobial therapy, diagnosis of secondary inflammations, diagnosis of renal involvement in paediatric urinary tract infection, etc. The present article summarizes the relevance of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of sepsis and how it can be useful in determining the therapeutic approaches.Further studies are needed to better understand the application of PCT in the diagnosis of sepsis, differentiating between microbial and non-microbial infection cases and determining the therapeutic approaches for sepsis.
| S-EPMC5543591 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the daily practice of two emergency departments (ED) in the Netherlands, where systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score are used differently as screening tools for culture-positive sepsis.DesignA prospective cross-sectional multicentre study.SettingTwo EDs at two European clinical teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants760 patients with suspected infection who met SIRS criteria or had a qualifying qSOFA score who were treated at two EDs in the Netherlands from 1 January to 1 March 2018 were included.MethodsSIRS criteria and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient. The first hospital treated the patients who met SIRS criteria following the worldwide Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocol. At the second hospital, only patients who met the qualifying qSOFA score received this treatment. Therefore, patients could be divided into five groups: (1) SIRS+, qSOFA-, not treated according to protocol (reference group); (2) SIRS+, qSOFA-, treated according to protocol; (3) SIRS+, qSOFA+, treated according to protocol; (4) SIRS-, qSOFA+, not treated according to protocol; (5) SIRS-, qSOFA+, treated according to protocol.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo prove culture-positive sepsis was present, cultures were used as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.Results98.9% met SIRS criteria and 11.7% met qSOFA score. Positive predictive values of SIRS criteria and qSOFA score were 41.2% (95% CI 37.4% to 45.2%) and 48.1% (95% CI 37.4% to 58.9%), respectively. HRs were 0.79 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.56, p=0.500), 3.42 (95% CI 1.82 to 6.44, p<0.001), 18.94 (95% CI 2.48 to 144.89, p=0.005) and 4.97 (95% CI 1.44 to 17.16, p=0.011) for groups 2-5, respectively.ConclusionqSOFA score performed as well as SIRS criteria for identifying culture-positive sepsis and performed significantly better for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. This study shows that SIRS criteria are no longer necessary and recommends qSOFA score as the standard for identifying culture-positive sepsis in the ED.Trial registration numberNL8315.
| S-EPMC8210661 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6921192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMonocyte distribution width (MDW) has been suggested as an early biomarker of sepsis, but few studies have compared MDW with conventional biomarkers, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). This study evaluated MDW as a biomarker for sepsis and compared it with CRP and PCT.Materials and methodsPatients aged 18-80 years who visited the emergency department were screened and prospectively enrolled in a tertiary medical center. Complete blood count, MDW, CRP, and PCT were examined. Diagnostic performance for sepsis was tested using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity.ResultsIn total, 665 patients were screened, and 549 patients with valid laboratory test results were included in the analysis. The patients were categorized into three groups according to the Sepsis-3 criteria: non-infection, infection, and sepsis. MDW showed the highest value in the sepsis group (median [interquartile range], 24.0 [20.8-27.8]). The AUC values for MDW, CRP, PCT, and white blood cells for predicting sepsis were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.75), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.78], 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.57-0.65), respectively. With the optimal cutoff value of the cohort, the sensitivity was 83.0% for MDW (cutoff, 19.8), 69.7% for CRP (cutoff, 4.0), and 76.6% for PCT (cutoff, 0.05). The combination of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) with MDW improved the AUC (0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to a greater extent than qSOFA alone (0.67; 95% CI, 0.62-0.72).ConclusionsMDW reflected a diagnostic performance comparable to that of conventional diagnostic markers, implying that MDW is an alternative biomarker. The combination of MDW and qSOFA improves the diagnostic performance for early sepsis.
| S-EPMC8049232 | biostudies-literature