Dataset Information

Predictive value of qSOFA score for death in emergency department resuscitation room among adult trauma patients:a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To explore the predictive value of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for death in the emergency department (ED) resuscitation room among adult trauma patients.

Methods

During the period November 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019, data was retrospectively collected of adult trauma patients triaged to the ED resuscitation room in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Death occurring in the ED resuscitation room was the study endpoint. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the association between qSOFA score and death. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also performed for death.

Results

A total of 1739 trauma victims were admitted, including 1695 survivors and 44 non-survivors. The death proportion raised with qSOFA score: 0.60% for qSOFA = 0, 3.28% for qSOFA = 1, 12.06% for qSOFA = 2, and 15.38% for qSOFA = 3, p < 0.001. Subgroup of qSOFA = 0 was used as a reference. In univariate analysis, crude OR for death with qSOFA = 1 was 5.65 [95% CI 2.25 to 14.24, p < 0.001], qSOFA = 2 was 22.85 [95% CI 8.84 to 59.04, p < 0.001], and qSOFA = 3 was 30.30 [95% CI 5.50 to 167.05, p < 0.001]. In multivariate analysis, with an adjusted OR (aOR) of 2.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 9.87, p = 0.094) for qSOFA = 1, aOR 6.80 (95% CI 1.79 to 25.90, p = 0.005) for qSOFA = 2, and aOR 24.42 (95% CI 3.67 to 162.27, p = 0.001) for qSOFA = 3. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) for predicting death in the ED resuscitation room among trauma patients was 0.78 [95% CI, 0.72-0.85].

Conclusions

The qSOFA score can assess the severity of emergency trauma patients and has good predictive value for death in the ED resuscitation room.

SUBMITTER: Huang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8434734 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of sepsis and common presentation to emergency department (ED) with a high mortality rate. The prognostic prediction value of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores in CAP in ED has not been validated in detail. The aim of this research is to investigate the prognostic prediction value of SOFA, qSOFA, and admission lactate compared with that of other commonly used severity scores (CURB65, CRB65, and PSI) in septic patients with CAP in ED. Methods:Adult septic patients with CAP admitted between Jan. 2017 and Jan. 2019 with increased admission SOFA???2 from baseline were enrolled. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcome included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use. Prognostic prediction performance of the parameters above was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using optimal cutoff values of qSOFA and admission lactate. Results:Among the 336 enrolled septic patients with CAP, 89 patients died and 247 patients survived after 28-day follow-up. The CURB65, CRB65, PSI, SOFA, qSOFA, and admission lactate levels were statistically significantly higher in the death group (P < 0.001). qSOFA and SOFA were superior and the combination of qSOFA?+?lactate and SOFA?+?lactate outperformed other combinations of severity score and admission lactate in predicting both primary and secondary outcomes. Patients with admission qSOFA?<?2 or lactate???2?mmol/L showed significantly prolonged survival than those patients with qSOFA???2 or lactate?>?2?mmol/L (log-rank ? 2?=?59.825, P < 0.001). The prognostic prediction performance of the combination of qSOFA and admission lactate was comparable to the full version of SOFA (AUROC 0.833 vs. 0.795, Z?=?1.378, P=0.168 in predicting 28-day mortality; AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.895, Z?=?1.022, P=0.307 in predicting ICU admission; AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.845, Z?=?0.921, P=0.357 in predicting mechanical ventilation; AUROC 0.875 vs. 0.821, Z?=?2.12, P=0.034 in predicting vasopressor use). Conclusion:qSOFA and SOFA were superior to CURB65, CRB65, and PSI in predicting 28-day mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use for septic patients with CAP in ED. Admission qSOFA with lactate is a convenient and useful predictor. Admission qSOFA???2 or lactate?>?2?mmol/L would be very helpful in discriminating high-risk patients with a higher mortality rate.

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.

Project description:BackgroundHemorrhage control is a time-critical task, and recent studies have demonstrated that a shorter time to definitive care is positively associated with patient survival and functional outcomes. The concept of direct transport to the operating room was proposed in the 1960s to reduce treatment time. Some trauma centers have developed protocols for direct-to-operating room resuscitation (DOR) programs. Moreover, few studies have reported the clinical outcomes of DOR in patients with trauma; however, their clinical effect in improving the efficiency and quality of care remains unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to consolidate all published studies reporting the effect of DOR on severe trauma and evaluate its utility.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2023, to identify all articles published in English that reported the effect of direct-to-operating room trauma resuscitation for severe trauma. The articles were reviewed as references of interest.ResultsWe reviewed six studies reporting the clinical effect of operating room trauma resuscitation. A total of 3232 patients were identified. Five studies compared the actual mortality with the predicted mortality using the trauma score and injury severity score, while one study compared mortality using propensity matching. Four studies reported that the actual survival rate for overall injuries was better than the predicted survival rate, whereas two studies reported no difference. Some studies performed subgroup analyses. Two studies showed that the survival rate for penetrating injuries was better than the predicted survival rate, and one showed that the survival rate for blunt injuries was better than the predicted survival rate. Five studies reported the time to surgical intervention, which was within 30 min. Two studies time-compared surgical intervention, which was shorter in patients who underwent DOR.ConclusionImplementing DOR is likely to have a beneficial effect on mortality and can facilitate rapid intervention in patients with severe shock. Future studies, possibly clinical trials, are needed to ensure a proper comparison of the efficiency.