Dataset Information

Predictive value of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score in risk assessment and outcome prediction in blunt trauma patients: A prospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a plethora of trauma scoring systems currently in place. A lot of these scoring systems, however, are complex and thus have a limited utility in the emergency department. The present study was conducted to evaluate the relatively easy to calculate quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) Score in blunt trauma victims. We ought to study its utility in predicting outcomes in blunt trauma patients and its usefulness to guide resource allocation in the emergency department.

Methods

A prospective observational study was performed on blunt trauma patients who had presented to the emergency department of our tertiary care center, over a period of 6 months. Their qSOFA scores were calculated and these patients were observed for their course in the hospital. The predictive validity of this score was then studied for the outcome prediction in these patients.

Results

A total of 246 patients were enrolled. Maximum 36.4% of patients had a qSOFA score of 0 and 10.1% were with a score of 3. Higher qSOFA scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality, higher needs for an ICU admission, higher needs for mechanical ventilation. However, it did not reliably predict the need for an emergency surgery in these patients.

Conclusions

qSOFA score serves as a reliable tool to predict adverse outcomes in blunt trauma victims. It helps with the quick allocation of resources in the emergency department.

SUBMITTER: Sadhwani N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8784631 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1-87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0-93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2-71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9-18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5-43.3).Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).

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:Background and importanceSepsis is a common and potentially lethal syndrome, and early recognition is critical to prevent deterioration. Yet, currently available scores to facilitate recognition of sepsis lack prognostic accuracy.ObjectiveTo identify the optimal time-point to determine NEWS, qSOFA and SIRS for the prediction of clinical deterioration in early sepsis and to determine whether the change in these scores over time improves their prognostic accuracy.DesignPost hoc analysis of prospectively collected data.Settings and participantsThis study was performed in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Adult medical patients with (potential) sepsis were included.Outcome measures and analysisThe primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 72 h after admission, defined as organ failure development, the composite outcome of ICU-admission and death. Secondary outcomes were the composite of ICU-admission/death and a rise in SOFA at least 2. Scores were calculated at the ED with 30-min intervals. ROC analyses were constructed to compare the prognostic accuracy of the scores.ResultsIn total, 1750 patients were included, of which 360 (20.6%) deteriorated and 79 (4.5%) went to the ICU or died within 72 h. The NEWS at triage (AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.65) had a higher accuracy than qSOFA (AUC, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) and SIRS (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63) for predicting deterioration. The AUC of the NEWS at 1 h (0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69) and 150 min after triage (0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68) was higher than the AUC of the NEWS at triage. The qSOFA had the highest AUC at 90 min after triage (0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.65), whereas the SIRS had the highest AUC at 60 min after triage (0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63); both are not significantly different from triage. The NEWS had a better accuracy to predict ICU-admission/death <72 h compared with qSOFA (AUC difference, 0.092) and SIRS (AUC difference, 0.137). No differences were found for the prediction of a rise in SOFA at least 2 within 72 h between the scores. Patients with the largest improvement in any of the scores were more prone to deteriorate.ConclusionNEWS had a higher prognostic accuracy to predict deterioration compared with SIRS and qSOFA; the highest accuracy was reached at 1 h after triage.