Dataset Information

Mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: The Impact of Acute and Preexisting Organ Failures and Infection Likelihood.

ABSTRACT: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) was chosen in the definition of sepsis due to superior validity in predicting mortality. However, few studies have assessed the contributions of acute versus chronic organ failures to SOFA for mortality prediction.

Objectives

The main objective in this study was to assess the relative importance of chronic and acute organ failures in mortality prediction in patients with suspected sepsis at hospital admission. We also evaluated how the presence of infection influenced the ability of SOFA to predict 30-day mortality.

Design setting and participants

Single-center prospective cohort study including 1,313 adult patients with suspected sepsis in rapid response teams in the emergency department.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was 30-day mortality. We measured the maximum total SOFA score during admission (SOFATotal), whereas preexisting chronic organ failure SOFA (SOFAChronic) score was assessed by chart review, allowing calculation of the corresponding acute SOFA (SOFAAcute) score. Likelihood of infection was determined post hoc as "No infection" or "Infection."

Results

SOFAAcute and SOFAChronic were both associated with 30-day mortality, adjusted for age and sex (adjusted odds ratios [AORs], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14 and 1.3; 1.2-1.7), respectively. Presence of infection was associated with lower 30-day mortality (AOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6), even when corrected for SOFA. In "No infection" patients, SOFAAcute was not associated with mortality (AOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2), and in this subgroup, neither SOFAAcute greater than or equal to 2 (relative risk [RR], 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8) nor SOFATotal greater than or equal to 2 (RR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.9-14.1) was associated with higher mortality.

Conclusions and relevance

Chronic and acute organ failures were equally associated with 30-day mortality in suspected sepsis. A substantial part of the total SOFA score was due to chronic organ failure, calling for caution when using total SOFA in defining sepsis and as an outcome in intervention studies. SOFA's mortality prediction ability was highly dependent on actual presence of infection.

SUBMITTER: Christensen EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9949839 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: The Impact of Acute and Preexisting Organ Failures and Infection Likelihood.

Christensen Erik E EE Prebensen Christian H CH Martinsen Anders B AB Stiff Elisabeth T ET Hoff Rune R Kvale Dag D Holten Aleksander R AR

Critical care explorations 20230221 2

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) was chosen in the definition of sepsis due to superior validity in predicting mortality. However, few studies have assessed the contributions of acute versus chronic organ failures to SOFA for mortality prediction.<h4>Objectives</h4>The main objective in this study was to assess the relative importance of chronic and acute organ failures in mortality prediction in patients with suspected sepsis at hospital admission. We also evaluated how the presen ...[more]

PMID: 36844375

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:BackgroundThe simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam.MethodsWe did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models.ResultsOf 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671).ConclusionIn our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings.Clinical trial registrationClinical trials registry-India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Project description:We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether the newly introduced quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score could predict sepsis outcomes and compared its performance to systematic inflammatory response syndrome, the previously widely used screening criteria for sepsis.Data sourcesWe searched multiple electronic databases including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (up to March 1, 2019) that evaluated quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or both (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42018103327).Study selectionStudies were included if the outcome was mortality, organ dysfunction, admission to ICU, ventilatory support, or prolonged ICU stay and if prediction performance was reported as either area under the curve, odds ratio, sensitivity, or specificity.Data extractionThe criterion validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were assessed by measuring its predictive validity for primary (mortality) and secondary outcomes in pooled metrics as mentioned. The data were analyzed using random effects model, and heterogeneity was explored using prespecified subgroups analyses.Data synthesisWe screened 1,340 studies, of which 121 studies (including data for 1,716,017 individuals) were analyzed. For mortality prediction, the pooled area under the curve was higher for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.702; 95% CI, 0.685-0.718; I 2 = 99.41%; p < 0.001) than for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (0.607; 95% CI, 0.589-0.624; I 2 = 96.49%; p < 0.001). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score consistently outperformed systemic inflammatory response syndrome across all subgroup analyses (area under the curve of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment vs. area under the curve of systemic inflammatory response syndrome p < 0.001), including patient populations (emergency department vs ICU), study design (retrospective vs prospective), and countries (developed vs resource-limited). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was more specific (specificity, 74.58%; 95% CI, 73.55-75.61%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (specificity, 35.24%; 95% CI, 22.80-47.69%) but less sensitive (56.39%; 95% CI, 50.52-62.27%) than systemic inflammatory response syndrome (78.84%; 95% CI, 74.48-83.19%).ConclusionsOverall, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score outperforms systemic inflammatory response syndrome in predicting sepsis outcome, but quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score has relative strengths/weaknesses (more specific but less sensitive) compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Dataset Information

Mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: The Impact of Acute and Preexisting Organ Failures and Infection Likelihood.

Objectives

Design setting and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: The Impact of Acute and Preexisting Organ Failures and Infection Likelihood.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets