Dataset Information

Comparison of different sepsis scoring systems and pathways: qSOFA, SIRS, Shapiro criteria and CEC SEPSIS KILLS pathway in bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic patients presenting to the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bacteraemia is associated with high morbidity and mortality, with delayed antibiotic treatment associated with poorer outcomes. Early identification is challenging, but clinically important. Multiple scoring systems have been developed to identify individuals in the broader categories of sepsis. We designed this study to assess the performance of existing scoring systems and pathways-CEC SEPSIS KILLS pathway (an Australian sepsis care package), quick sequential organ failure score (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and the Shapiro criteria.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study performed in two metropolitan hospitals in NSW, consisting of adult patients (> 18 years) with positive blood cultures containing a true pathogen and patients matched by age without positive blood cultures. Performance (sensitivity, specificity, and mortality prediction) of recognised sepsis and bacteraemia criteria and pathways-qSOFA, SIRS, Shapiro criteria and CEC SEPSIS KILLS pathway in the first 4 h following ED triage was assessed.

Results

There were 251 patients in each cohort. Sepsis-related mortality was higher in the bacteraemic group (OR 0.4, p = 0.03). Of the criteria studied, the modified Shapiro criteria had the highest sensitivity (88%) with modest specificity (37.85%), and qSOFA had the highest specificity (83.67%) with poor sensitivity (19.82%). SIRS had reasonable sensitivity (82.07%), with poor sensitivity (20.72%). The CEC SEPSIS pathway sensitivity of 70.1% and specificity of 71.1%. The SEPSIS KILLS was activated on only 14% of bacteraemic patients.

Conclusion

The performance of all scoring systems and pathways was suboptimal in the identification of patients at risk of bacteraemia presenting to the emergency department.

SUBMITTER: Sparks R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783440 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundWith Sepsis-3, the increase in sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) as a clinical score for the identification of patients with sepsis and quickSOFA (qSOFA) for the identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU) were introduced in 2016. However, their validity has been questioned, and their applicability in different settings and subgroups, such as hematological cancer patients, remains unclear. We therefore assessed the validity of SOFA, qSOFA, and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria regarding the diagnosis of sepsis and the prediction of in-hospital mortality in a multicenter cohort of hematological cancer patients treated on ICU and non-ICU settings.MethodsWe retrospectively calculated SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA scores in our cohort and applied the definition of sepsis as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection" as reference. Discriminatory capacity was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).ResultsAmong 450 patients with hematological cancer (median age 58?years, 274 males [61%]), 180 (40%) had sepsis of which 101 (56%) were treated on ICU. For the diagnosis of sepsis, sensitivity was 86%, 64%, and 42% for SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA, respectively. However, the AUROCs of SOFA and qSOFA indicated better discrimination for sepsis than SIRS (SOFA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64-0.73] p?<?0.001; qSOFA, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.62-0.71] p?<?0.001; SIRS, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53-0.61] p?<?0.001).In-hospital mortality was 40% and 14% in patients with and without sepsis, respectively (p?<?0.001). Regarding patients with sepsis, mortality was similar in patients with positive and negative SIRS scores (39% vs. 40% (p?=?0.899), respectively). For patients with qSOFA ??2, mortality was 49% compared to 33% for those with qSOFA <?2 (p?=?0.056), and for SOFA 56% vs. 11% (p?<?0.001), respectively. SOFA allowed significantly better discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69-0.79] p?<?0.001) than qSOFA (AUROC 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.71] p?<?0.001) or SIRS (AUROC 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44-0.54] p?<?0.001).ConclusionsAn increase in SOFA score of ??2 had better prognostic accuracy for both diagnosis of sepsis and in-hospital mortality in this setting, and especially on ICU, we observed limited validity of SIRS criteria and qSOFA in identifying hematological patients with sepsis and at high risk of death.

Project description:BackgroundThe Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) Task Force recently introduced a new clinical score termed quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). We attempted to compare the discriminatory capacity of the qSOFA versus the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) score for predicting mortality, ICU-free days, and organ dysfunction-free days in patients with suspicion of infection outside the ICU.MethodsThe Weill Cornell Medicine Registry and Biobank of Critically Ill Patients is an ongoing cohort of critically ill patients, for whom biological samples and clinical information (including vital signs before and during ICU hospitalization) are prospectively collected. Using such information, qSOFA and SIRS scores outside the ICU (specifically, within 8 hours before ICU admission) were calculated. This study population was therefore comprised of patients in the emergency department or the hospital wards who had suspected infection, were subsequently admitted to the medical ICU and were included in the Registry and Biobank.ResultsOne hundred fifty-two patients (67% from the emergency department) were included in this study. Sixty-seven percent had positive cultures and 19% died in the hospital. Discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.74; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.66-0.81] was significantly greater compared with SIRS criteria (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67; p = 0.03). The qSOFA performed better than SIRS regarding discrimination for ICU-free days (p = 0.04), but not for ventilator-free days (p = 0.19), any organ dysfunction-free days (p = 0.13), or renal dysfunction-free days (p = 0.17).ConclusionsIn patients with suspected infection who eventually required admission to the ICU, qSOFA calculated before their ICU admission had greater accuracy than SIRS for predicting mortality and ICU-free days. However, it may be less clear whether qSOFA is also better than SIRS criteria for predicting ventilator free-days and organ dysfunction-free days. These findings may help clinicians gain further insight into the usefulness of qSOFA.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2?×?2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (<?2 and???2) or SIRS score (<?2 and???2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I2 index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy.ResultsEight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score???2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38-6.14) using a random-effects model (I2?=?91.1%). A SIRS score???2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96-3.86) using a random-effects model (I2?=?89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score???2 was more specific; however a SIRS score???2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections.ConclusionsA qSOFA score???2 and SIRS score???2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections.

Project description:The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic effectiveness of Sepsis-3 criteria, including sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA), with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria among patients with urolithiasis associated sepsis that were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) facilities following surgical interventions. To achieve this, the records of all patients transferred to ICU following surgical interventions with urolithiasis-associated sepsis between January 2010 to July 2017 at Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 107 patients were enrolled. The prognostic performances of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS for predicting in-hospital mortality (sepsis-related mortality during patients' hospitalizations) or prolonged length of ICU stay (>3 days) were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and Z statistic values. The results revealed that the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.4% and the percentage of in-hospital mortality or prolonged length of ICU stay (>3 days) was 72.0% among the 107 patients. The favorable outcome group exhibited significantly decreased white blood cell counts, and levels of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin and increased systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure. The AUROC of qSOFA, SIRS and SOFA were 0.615, 0.625 and 0.860, respectively. SOFA was significantly more effective at predicting adverse outcomes when compared with SIRS and qSOFA criteria. Following adjustments for patient age and comorbidities, the AUROC values of qSOFA, SIRS and SOFA were 0.713, 0.722 and 0.940. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that the prognostic performance of SOFA for predicting in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay among patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis following surgical interventions was significantly improved when compared with qSOFA or SIRS criteria. Based on these results it is recommended that urologists use the SOFA score for patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis.

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.