Dataset Information

A comparison of scoring systems for predicting mortality and sepsis in the emergency department patients with a suspected infection.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We aimed to compare the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (mSIRS) score, and modified Search Out Severity (mSOS) score in predicting mortality and sepsis among patients suspected of first observed infections in the emergency department. The modified scores were created by removing variables for simplicity.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study that enrolled adult patients presenting at the emergency department with signs and symptoms suggesting infection. The mNEWS, qSOFA score, mSIRS score, and mSOS score were calculated using triage data. The SOFA score was a reference standard for sepsis diagnosis. All patients were monitored for up to 30 days after the initial visit to measure each scoring system's ability to predict 30-day mortality and sepsis.

Results

There were 260 patients included in the study. The 30-day mortality prediction with mNEWS ≥5 had the highest sensitivity (91.18%). The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the 30-day mortality prediction was mNEWS (0.607), followed by qSOFA (0.605), mSOS (0.550), and mSIRS (0.423). The sepsis prediction with mNEWS ≥5 had the highest sensitivity (96.48%). The highest AUC for the sepsis prediction was also mNEWS (0.685), followed by qSOFA (0.605), mSOS (0.480), and mSIRS (0.477).

Conclusion

mNEWS was an acceptable scoring system screening tool for predicting mortality and sepsis in patients with a suspected infection.

SUBMITTER: Thodphetch M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8743683 | 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:OBJECTIVE:To derive and validate a new clinical prediction rule to risk-stratify emergency department (ED) patients admitted with suspected sepsis. DESIGN:Retrospective prognostic study of prospectively collected data. SETTING:ED. PARTICIPANTS:Patients aged ?18 years who met two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria or one Red Flag sepsis criteria on arrival, received intravenous antibiotics for a suspected infection and admitted. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:In-hospital all-cause mortality. METHOD:The data were divided into derivation and validation cohorts. The simplified-Mortality in Severe Sepsis in the ED score and quick-SOFA scores, refractory hypotension and lactate were collectively termed 'component scores' and cumulatively termed the 'Risk-stratification of ED suspected Sepsis (REDS) score'. Each patient in the derivation cohort received a score (0-3) for each component score. The REDS score ranged from 0 to 12. The component scores were subject to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the REDS and the components scores were constructed and their cut-off points identified. Scores above the cut-off points were deemed high-risk. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves and sensitivity for mortality of the high-risk category of the REDS score and component scores were compared. The REDS score was internally validated. RESULTS:2115 patients of whom 282 (13.3%) died in hospital. Derivation cohort: 1078 patients with 140 deaths (13%). The AUROC curve with 95% CI, cut-off point and sensitivity for mortality (95% CI) of the high-risk category of the REDS score were: derivation: 0.78 (0.75 to 0.80); ?3; 85.0 (78 to 90.5). VALIDATION:0.74 (0.71 to 0.76); ?3; 84.5 (77.5 to 90.0). The AUROC curve and the sensitivity for mortality of the REDS score was better than that of the component scores. Specificity and mortality rates for REDS scores of ?3, ?5 and ?7 were 54.8%, 88.8% and 96.9% and 21.8%, 36.0% and 49.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION:The REDS score is a simple and objective score to risk-stratify ED patients with suspected sepsis.

Project description:Following emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission.We used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model.A total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P?<?0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50; P?<?0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32-6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P?<?0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P?<?0.001).In comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.