Dataset Information

Reappraisal of sepsis-3 and CLIF-SOFA as predictors of mortality in patients with cirrhosis and infection presenting to the emergency department: A multicenter study.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Sepsis-3 criteria and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) have been advocated to be used in defining sepsis in the general population. We aimed to compare the Sepsis-3 criteria and Chronic Liver Failure-SOFA (CLIF-SOFA) scores as predictors of in-hospital mortality in cirrhotic patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) for infections.

Methods

A total of 1,622 cirrhosis patients admitted at the ED for infections were assessed retrospectively. We analyzed their demographic, laboratory, and microbiological data upon diagnosis of the infection. The primary endpoint was inhospital mortality rate. The predictive performances of baseline CLIF-SOFA, Sepsis-3, and qSOFA scores for in-hospital mortality were evaluated.

Results

The CLIF-SOFA score proved to be significantly better in predicting in-hospital mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.82) than the Sepsis-3 (AUROC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.77, P<0.001) and qSOFA (AUROC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.70; P<0.001) score. The CLIF-SOFA, CLIF-C-AD scores, Sepsis-3 criteria, septic shock, and qSOFA positivity were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.19-1.28; aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.17; aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.15-1.24; aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.42-2.48; aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.55-2.72; respectively; all P<0.001). For CLIF-SOFA scores ≥6, in-hospital mortality was >10%; this is the cutoff point for the definition of sepsis.

Conclusion

Among cirrhosis patients presenting with infections at the ED, CLIF-SOFA scores showed a better predictive performance for mortality than both Sepsis-3 criteria and qSOFA scores, and can be a useful tool of risk stratification in cirrhotic patients requiring timely intervention for infection.

SUBMITTER: Kim JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients with cirrhosis have high admission and readmission rates, and it is estimated that a quarter are potentially preventable. Little data are available regarding nonmedical factors impacting triage decisions in this patient population. This study sought to explore such factors as well as to determine provider perspectives on low-acuity clinical presentations to the emergency department, including ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. A survey was distributed in four liver transplant centers to both emergency medicine and hepatology providers, who included attending physicians, house staff, and advanced practitioners; 196 surveys were returned (estimated response rate 50.6%). Emergency medicine providers identified several influential nonmedical factors impacting inpatient triage decisions, including input from a hepatologist (77.7%), inadequate patient access to outpatient specialty care (68.6%), and patient need for diagnostic testing for a procedure (65.6%). When given patient-based scenarios of low-acuity cases, such as ascites requiring paracentesis, only 7.0% believed patients should be hospitalized while 48.9% said these patients would be hospitalized at their institution (P?<?0.0001). For mild hepatic encephalopathy, the comparable numbers were 19.5% and 55.2%, respectively (P?<?0.001). Several perceived barriers were cited for this discrepancy, including limited resources both in the outpatient setting and emergency department. Most providers believed that an emergency department observation unit protocol would influence triage toward an emergency department observation unit visit instead of inpatient admission for both ascites requiring large volume paracentesis (83.2%) and mild hepatic encephalopathy (79.4%). Conclusion: Many nonmedical factors that influence inpatient triage for patients with cirrhosis could be targeted for quality improvement initiatives. In some scenarios, providers are limited by resource availability, which results in triage to an inpatient admission even when they believe this is not the most appropriate disposition. (Hepatology Communications 2018;2:237-244).

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.