Quick SOFA Scores Predict Mortality in Adult Emergency Department Patients With and Without Suspected Infection

How I manage severe bacterial infections in people who inject drugs

BACKGROUND

Injecting drug use is a risk factor for severe bacterial infection, but there is limited high-quality evidence to guide clinicians providing care to people who inject drugs. Management can be complicated by mistrust, stigma, and competing patient priorities.

OBJECTIVES

To review the management of severe infections in people who inject drugs, using an illustrative clinical scenario of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection.

SOURCES

The discussion is based on recent literature searches of relevant topics. Very few randomized clinical trials have focussed specifically on the management of severe bacterial infections among people who inject drugs. Most recommendations are, therefore, based on observational studies, extrapolation from other patient groups, and the experience and opinions of the authors.

CONTENT

We discuss evidence and options regarding the following management issues for severe bacterial infections among people who inject drugs: initial management of sepsis; indications for surgical management; assessment and management of substance dependence; approaches to antibiotic administration following clinical stability; opportunistic health promotion; and secondary prevention of bacterial infections. Throughout, we highlight the importance of harm reduction and strategies to optimize patient engagement in care through a patient-centred approach.

IMPLICATIONS

We advocate for a multi-disciplinary trauma-informed approach to the management of severe bacterial infection among people who inject drugs. We emphasize the need for pragmatic trials to inform management guidelines, including those that are co-designed with the community. In particular, research is needed to establish the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of inpatient intravenous antibiotics vs. early oral antibiotic switch, outpatient parenteral therapy, and long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics in this scenario.

The Physician Surprise Question in the Emergency Department: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to test the ability of the surprise question (SQ), when asked to emergency physicians (EPs), to predict in-hospital mortality among adults admitted to an emergency room (ER).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study at an academic medical centre included consecutive patients 18 years or older who received care in the ER and were subsequently admitted to the hospital from 20 April 2018 to 20 October 2018. EPs were required to answer the SQ for all patients who were being admitted to hospital. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The cohort included 725 adults (mean (SD) age, 60 (17) years, 51% men) from 58 128 emergency department (ED) visits. The mortality rates were 20.6% for 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and 23.6% for in-hospital mortality. The diagnostic test characteristics of the SQ have a sensitivity of 53.7% and specificity of 87.1%, and a relative risk of 4.02 (95% CI 3.15 to 5.13), p<0.01). The positive and negative predictive values were 57% and 86%, respectively; the positive likelihood ratio was 4.1 and negative likelihood ratio was 0.53; and the accuracy was 79.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that asking the SQ to EPs may be a useful tool to identify patients in the ED with a high risk of in-hospital mortality.

Validation of a seven-question tool (PRISMA-7) in predicting prognosis of older adults in the emergency department: A prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Older patients arrive at the emergency department (ED) with complex medical challenges, and the current ED triage models frequently undertriage the severity of illness in older adults. There is increasing awareness regarding the importance of identifying frailty in older patients in the context of urgent care. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the predictive accuracy of the seven-question tool of the Program on Research for Integrating Services of the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7) in the ED for 28-day mortality among older adults.

DESIGN

A prospective polycentric observational study.

SETTING

West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Shangjinnanfu of West China Hospital, and People's Hospital of Henan Province.

PARTICIPANTS

ED patients aged ≥65 years from the three tertiary care centers over an 8-week period.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome, 28-day all-cause mortality, was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess the predictive validity. The secondary endpoints, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer was investigated using multivariable logistic regression, compared with trained study assistants.

RESULTS

The final study population comprised 1043 consecutive patients aged ≥65 years. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for 28-day mortality was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.84), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.77), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83) for PRISMA-7, Emergency Severity Index (ESI), and quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), respectively.There was no difference in the AUC between PRISMA-7 and qSOFA(p = 0.374).The AUC for ICU admission was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.80), 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59-0.66), and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.64-0.72) for PRISMA-7, ESI, and qSOFA, respectively.The AUC for ICU admission between PRISMA-7 and ESI(p<0.001), PRISMA-7 and qSOFA(p<0.001), qSOFA and ESI(p = 0.005) was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal that PRISMA-7 improves the prediction of ICU admission, but there is no significant difference when it comes to all-cause mortality. PRISMA-7 appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for identifying frailty in the ED.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100046545.

Predictive value of qsofa in early mortality risk stratification in acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI) methods are used in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide a rapid mortality risk stratification in patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) immediately after admission without relying on laboratory data by using quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), a three-parameter scoring system with proven efficiency used for swift prediction of organ dysfunction, and compare it with Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI).

METHODS

This study included outpatients and inpatients diagnosed with acute PTE in our clinic and whose PESI, sPESI and qSOFA scores were calculated for early mortality risk classification.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients who were objectively diagnosed with PTE and followed up were prospectively observed. When their qSOFA scores were compared with the early mortality risk stratification in acute PTE, patients with a high qSOFA score were determined to be in the high-risk group in the early mortality risk stratification (p < 0.001). Overall, 69.2% of 26 patients with a high qSOFA risk (≥2) were found to be in the high-risk group in the early mortality risk binary stratification in acute PTE (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The qSOFA score provides guidance to identify patients with acute PTE with potentially life-threatening hemodynamic decompensation or collapse in need of reperfusion therapy.

The S-S.M.A.R.T: A New Prognostic Tool for Patients with Suspected Sepsis in the Emergency Department

Background

The sepsis screening tool is essential because it enables the rapid identification of high-risk patients and facilitates prompt treatment. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a widely used screening tool for sepsis. However, it has limitations in predicting patient prognosis. We developed the S-S.M.A.R.T (sepsis evaluation with shock index, mental status, age, and ROX index on triage) and aimed at evaluating it as a screening tool for patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective chart review of patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department. We compared the prognosis prediction abilities of the S-S.M.A.R.T and qSOFA scores in patients with suspected sepsis. The primary outcome was 7-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and ICU admission. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the chi-square test were used.

Results

In total, 401 patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 72.2 ± 15.6 years, and 213 (53.1%) of them were female. The S-S.M.A.R.T had superior predictive ability for prognosis of patients with suspected sepsis compared to qSOFA (area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.789 vs. 0.699; p=0.02 for 7-day mortality, AUC of 0.786 vs. 0.681; p < 0.001 for 30-day mortality, AUC 0.758 vs 0.717; p=0.05 for ICU admission).

Conclusion

The S-S.M.A.R.T can be useful in predicting the prognosis of patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department.

Acute dyspnea in the emergency department: a clinical review

Acute dyspnea represents one of the most frequent symptoms leading to emergency room evaluation. Its significant prognostic value warrants a careful evaluation. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is complex due to the lack of specificity and the loose association between its intensity and the severity of the underlying pathological condition. The initial assessment of dyspnea calls for prompt diagnostic evaluation and identification of optimal monitoring strategy and provides information useful to allocate the patient to the most appropriate setting of care. In recent years, accumulating evidence indicated that lung ultrasound, along with echocardiography, represents the first rapid and non-invasive line of assessment that accurately differentiates heart, lung or extra-pulmonary involvement in patients with dyspnea. Moreover, non-invasive respiratory support modalities such as high-flow nasal oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure have aroused major clinical interest, in light of their efficacy and practicality to treat patients with dyspnea requiring ventilatory support, without using invasive mechanical ventilation. This clinical review is focused on the pathophysiology of acute dyspnea, on its clinical presentation and evaluation, including ultrasound-based diagnostic workup, and on available non-invasive modalities of respiratory support that may be required in patients with acute dyspnea secondary or associated with respiratory failure.

Use of Biomarkers to Improve 28-Day Mortality Stratification in Patients with Sepsis and SOFA ≤ 6

Early diagnosis and appropriate treatments are crucial to reducing mortality risk in septic patients. Low SOFA scores and current biomarkers may not adequately discern patients that could develop severe organ dysfunction or have an elevated mortality risk. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the predictive value of the biomarkers mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM), procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and lactate for 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis, and patients with a SOFA score ≤6. 284 were included, with a 28-day all-cause mortality of 8.45% (n = 24). Non-survivors were older (p = 0.003), required mechanical ventilation (p = 0.04), were ventilated for longer (p = 0.02), and had higher APACHE II (p = 0.015) and SOFA (p = 0.027) scores. Lactate showed the highest predictive ability for all-cause 28-day mortality, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.67 (0.55-0.79). The AUROC for all-cause 28-day mortality in patients with community-acquired infection was 0.69 (0.57-0.84) for SOFA and 0.70 (0.58-0.82) for MR-proADM. A 2.1 nmol/L cut-off point for this biomarker in this subgroup of patients discerned, with 100% sensibility, survivors from non-survivors at 28 days. In patients with community-acquired sepsis and initial SOFA score ≤ 6, MR-proADM could help identify patients at risk of 28-day mortality.

Performance of qSOFA Score as a Screening Tool for Sepsis in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Sepsis is the leading cause of mortality, and various scoring systems have been developed for its early identification and treatment. The objective was to test the ability of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score to identify sepsis and predict sepsis-related mortality in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We conducted a prospective study from July 2018 to April 2020. Consecutive patients with age ≥18 years who presented to the ED with a clinical suspicion of infection were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and odds ratio (OR) for sepsis related mortality on day 7 and 28 were measured.

Results

A total of 1200 patients were recruited; of which 48 patients were excluded and 17 patients were lost to follow-up. 54 (45.4%) of 119 patients with positive qSOFA (qSOFA >2) died at 7 days and 76 (63.9%) died at 28 days. A total of 103 (10.1%) of 1016 patients with negative qSOFA (qSOFA score <2) died at 7 days and 207 (20.4%) died at 28 days. Patients with positive qSOFA score were at higher odds of dying at 7 days (OR: 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1-5.2, P < 0.001) and 28 days (OR: 6.9, 95% CI: 4.6-10.3, P < 0.001). The PPV and NPV with positive qSOFA score to predict 7- and 28-day mortality were 45.4%, 89.9% and 63.9%, 79.6%, respectively.

Conclusion

The qSOFA score can be used as a risk stratification tool in a resource-limited setting to identify infected patients at an increased risk of death.

Association between Mortality and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score during a Short Stay in the Intensive Care Unit after Non-Cardiac Surgery

Background: The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has been validated in various clinical situations. However, it has not been investigated during a short stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to evaluate the association between the SOFA score and outcomes in patients who were monitored for less than one day after non-cardiac surgery. Methods: From a total of 203,787 consecutive adult patients who underwent non-cardiac surgery between January 2011 and June 2019, we selected 17,714 who were transferred to the ICU immediately after surgery and stayed for less than 24 h. Patients were divided according to quartile value and change between the initial and follow-up levels of SOFA score. Results: Three-year mortality tended to increase with a higher initial SOFA score (11.7%, 11.8%, 15.1%, and 17.8%, respectively). The patients were divided according to changes in the SOFA score at the midnight postoperative follow-up check: 16,176 (91.3%) in the stable group and 1538 (8.7%) in the worsened group. The worsened group showed significantly higher three-year mortality and complications (13.2% vs. 18.6%; HR [hazard ratio]: 1.236; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.108−1.402; p ≤ 0.0021 for three-year mortality and 3.8% vs. 9.1%; HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.73−2.60; p < 0.001 for acute kidney injury). Conclusions: The SOFA score during a short stay in the ICU after non-cardiac surgery showed an association with mortality. The change in SOFA score may need to be considered at discharge from the ICU.

Comparison of prognostic scores for inpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective monocentric cohort study

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to a steep increase in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for acute respiratory failure worldwide. Early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration is crucial in terms of appropriate care delivery and resource allocation. We aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Uraemia, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age ≥65 (CURB-65), Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation (ROX) index and Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) score to predict death and ICU admission among patients admitted to the hospital for acute COVID-19 infection.

Methods and analysis

Consecutive adult patients admitted to the Geneva University Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares in spring and autumn 2020 were included. Discriminative performance of these prediction rules, obtained during the first 24 hours of hospital admission, were computed to predict death or ICU admission. We further exluded patients with therapeutic limitations and reported areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day mortality and ICU admission in sensitivity analyses.

Results

A total of 2122 patients were included. 216 patients (10.2%) required ICU admission and 303 (14.3%) died within 30 days post admission. 4C score had the best discriminatory performance to predict 30-day mortality (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.85), compared with SOFA (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78), qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.62), CURB-65 (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78) and ROX index (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.72). ROX index had the greatest discriminatory performance (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83) to predict ICU admission compared with 4C score (AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.66), CURB-65 (AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.64), SOFA (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.77) and qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.62).

Conclusion

Scores including age and/or comorbidities (4C and CURB-65) have the best discriminatory performance to predict mortality among inpatients with COVID-19, while scores including quantitative assessment of hypoxaemia (SOFA and ROX index) perform best to predict ICU admission. Exclusion of patients with therapeutic limitations improved the discriminatory performance of prognostic scores relying on age and/or comorbidities to predict ICU admission.

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score and the Modified Early Warning Score for Predicting Clinical Deterioration in General Ward Patients Regardless of Suspected Infection

BACKGROUND

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is suggested to use for screening patients with a high risk of clinical deterioration in the general wards, which could simply be regarded as a general early warning score. However, comparison of unselected admissions to highlight the benefits of introducing qSOFA in hospitals already using Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) remains unclear. We sought to compare qSOFA with MEWS for predicting clinical deterioration in general ward patients regardless of suspected infection.

METHODS

The predictive performance of qSOFA and MEWS for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfer was compared with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis using the databases of vital signs collected from consecutive hospitalized adult patients over 12 months in five participating hospitals in Korea.

RESULTS

Of 173,057 hospitalized patients included for analysis, 668 (0.39%) experienced the composite outcome. The discrimination for the composite outcome for MEWS (AUC, 0.777; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.770-0.781) was higher than that for qSOFA (AUC, 0.684; 95% CI, 0.676-0.686; P < 0.001). In addition, MEWS was better for prediction of IHCA (AUC, 0.792; 95% CI, 0.781-0.795 vs. AUC, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.625-0.645; P < 0.001) and unexpected ICU transfer (AUC, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.760-0.773 vs. AUC, 0.716; 95% CI, 0.707-0.718; P < 0.001) than qSOFA. Using the MEWS at a cutoff of ≥ 5 would correctly reclassify 3.7% of patients from qSOFA score ≥ 2. Most patients met MEWS ≥ 5 criteria 13 hours before the composite outcome compared with 11 hours for qSOFA score ≥ 2.

CONCLUSION

MEWS is more accurate that qSOFA score for predicting IHCA or unexpected ICU transfer in patients outside the ICU. Our study suggests that qSOFA should not replace MEWS for identifying patients in the general wards at risk of poor outcome.

Procalcitonin prognostic value in predicting mortality among adult patients with sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria

BACKGROUND Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity globally. Gram-negative bacteremia was reported to have a high risk of septic shock and poor prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the role of procalcitonin in predicting mortality in patients with sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study performed based on medical records and sepsis registry of Tropical and Infectious Disease Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. The inclusion criteria were patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria based on blood culture on admission and hospitalized between March 2017 and October 2020. Data taken from medical records included subjects’ characteristics, laboratory parameters, and 28-day mortality outcomes during hospitalization. Receiver operating characteristic was used to determine the area under the curve (AUC) of procalcitonin and its accuracy. RESULTS A total of 128 patients were eligible. The cumulative survival of patients with Gram-negative bacteremia was 48.4% (standard error 0.96%). The AUC of procalcitonin to predict mortality was 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.54). Escherichia coli was the predominant microorganism in blood culture (n = 38, 29.7%). CONCLUSIONS Procalcitonin has a poor performance in predicting mortality of patients with sepsis due to Gram-negative bacteria.

Factors Associated With Mortality in Elderly Hospitalized Patients at Admission

Background

Several factors have been associated with mortality prediction among older inpatients. The objective of this study was to assess the factors associated with mortality in hospitalized elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 353 consecutively admitted elderly patients (47.9% women), with a median age of 83 years (interquartile range 75.00-88.00), were enrolled in the study and patient characteristics were recorded. Comorbidities were assessed using Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), activities of daily living by Barthel Index (BI), frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), cognition by Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) and symptom severity at admission by quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment (qSOFA) score. CFS, GDS and BI were estimated for the premorbid patients’ status. Parametric and non-parametric tests and binary logistic regression analysis were applied to identify the factors associated with mortality. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyse the prognostic value of CFS and qSOFA.

Results

In total, 55 patients (15.6%) died during hospitalization. In regression analysis, the factors associated with mortality were the qSOFA score at admission (p=0.001, odds ratio [OR]=1.895, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.282-2.802) and the premorbid CFS score (p=0.001, OR=1.549, 95% CI 1.1204-1.994). The classifiers both have almost similar area under the curve (AUC) scores, with CFS performing slightly better. More specifically, both CFS (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85, p=0.001) and qSOFA (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p<0.001) showed almost the same accuracy for predicting inpatients’ mortality.

Conclusion

This study strengthens the perception of premorbid frailty and disease severity at admission as factors closely related to mortality in hospitalized elderly patients. Simple measures such as CFS and qSOFA score may help identify, in the emergency department, elderly patients at risk, in order to provide timely interventions.

Varying Estimates of Sepsis among Adults Presenting to US Emergency Departments: Estimates from a National Dataset from 2002-2018

Background

A variety of approaches to defining sepsis using administrative datasets have been previously reported. We aimed to compare estimates, demographics, treatment factors, outcomes and longitudinal trends of patients identified with sepsis in United States emergency departments (EDs) using differing sets of sepsis criteria.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Healthcare Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a complex survey of nonfederal US ED encounters between 2002 to 2018. We obtained survey-weighted population-adjusted encounters of sepsis using the following criteria: explicit sepsis, severe sepsis, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score combined with the presence of infection.

Results

Age-adjusted for US adults, 18.6, 16.1 and 8.9 encounters per 10 000 population were identified when using the explicit, severe sepsis and qSOFA definitions, respectively. A higher proportion of the explicit cohort was hospitalized and had blood cultures performed, compared to cohorts ascertained using severe sepsis and qSOFA criteria, though confidence intervals overlapped. Antibiotic use was highest in encounters meeting qSOFA criteria. When inspecting unweighted encounters meeting each set of criteria, there was minimal overlap, with only 3% meeting all three. Encounters meeting the explicit and severe sepsis criteria were increasing over time.

Conclusion

The explicit, severe sepsis and qSOFA criteria generated similar annual rates of presentation when applied to US ED encounters, with some evidence of the explicit sepsis cohort being higher acuity. There was minimal overlap of cases and instability in estimates when assessed longitudinally. Our findings inform research efforts to accurately identify sepsis among ED encounters using administrative data.

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

Background

Methods

Results

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.

•

Helps guide earlier allocation of intensive resources to those patients at higher risk of death.

•

Patients with higher qSOFA score could thus be directly shifted to the Intensive care unit from the ED.

Which scoring system is effective in predicting mortality in patients with Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever? A validation study

We aimed to decide which scoring system is the best for the evaluation of the course of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) by comparing scoring systems such as qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) and SGS (Severity Grading System) in centers where patients with CCHF were monitored. The study was conducted with patients diagnosed with CCHF in five different centers where the disease was encountered most commonly. Patients having proven PCR and/or IgM positivity for CCHF were included in the study. The scores of the scoring systems on admission, at the 72^nd hour and at the 120^th hour were calculated and evaluated. The data of 388 patients were obtained from five centers and evaluated. SGS, SOFA and APACHE II were the best scoring systems in predicting mortality on admission. All scoring systems were significant in predicting mortality at the 72^nd and 120^th hours. On admission, there was a correlation between the qSOFA, SOFA and APACHE II scores and the SGS scores in the group of survivors. All scoring systems had a positive correlation in the same direction. The correlation coefficients were strong for qSOFA and SOFA, but poor for APACHE II. A one-unit rise in SGS increased the probability of death by 12.818 times. qSOFA did not provide significant results in predicting mortality on admission. SGS, SOFA and APACHE II performed best at admission and at the 72^nd and 120^th hours.

Predictive value of qSOFA score for death in emergency department resuscitation room among adult trauma patients:a retrospective study

Background

To explore the predictive value of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for death in the emergency department (ED) resuscitation room among adult trauma patients.

Methods

During the period November 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019, data was retrospectively collected of adult trauma patients triaged to the ED resuscitation room in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Death occurring in the ED resuscitation room was the study endpoint. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the association between qSOFA score and death. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also performed for death.

Results

A total of 1739 trauma victims were admitted, including 1695 survivors and 44 non-survivors. The death proportion raised with qSOFA score: 0.60% for qSOFA = 0, 3.28% for qSOFA = 1, 12.06% for qSOFA = 2, and 15.38% for qSOFA = 3, p < 0.001. Subgroup of qSOFA = 0 was used as a reference. In univariate analysis, crude OR for death with qSOFA = 1 was 5.65 [95% CI 2.25 to 14.24, p < 0.001], qSOFA = 2 was 22.85 [95% CI 8.84 to 59.04, p < 0.001], and qSOFA = 3 was 30.30 [95% CI 5.50 to 167.05, p < 0.001]. In multivariate analysis, with an adjusted OR (aOR) of 2.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 9.87, p = 0.094) for qSOFA = 1, aOR 6.80 (95% CI 1.79 to 25.90, p = 0.005) for qSOFA = 2, and aOR 24.42 (95% CI 3.67 to 162.27, p = 0.001) for qSOFA = 3. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) for predicting death in the ED resuscitation room among trauma patients was 0.78 [95% CI, 0.72–0.85].

Conclusions

The qSOFA score can assess the severity of emergency trauma patients and has good predictive value for death in the ED resuscitation room.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00498-0.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive and Non-Intensive Care Units: Insights From the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry

Background

Limited information is available regarding in‐hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID‐19.

Methods and Results

We leveraged the American Heart Association COVID‐19 Cardiovascular Disease (AHA COVID‐19 CVD) Registry to conduct a cohort study of adults hospitalized for COVID‐19. IHCA was defined as those with documentation of cardiac arrest requiring medication or electrical shock for resuscitation. Mixed effects models with random intercepts were used to identify independent predictors of IHCA and mortality while accounting for clustering at the hospital level. The study cohort included 8518 patients (6080 not in the intensive care unit [ICU]) with mean age of 61.5 years (SD 17.5). IHCA occurred in 509 (5.9%) patients overall with 375 (73.7%) in the ICU and 134 (26.3%) patients not in the ICU. The majority of patients at the time of ICHA were not in a shockable rhythm (76.5%). Independent predictors of IHCA included older age, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; CI, 1.4–2.4; P<0.001), and non‐Hispanic Black race (OR, 1.5; CI, 1.1–1.9; P=0.004). Other predictors included oxygen use on admission, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on admission, and hypertension. Overall, 35 (6.9%) patients with IHCA survived to discharge, with 9.1% for ICU and 0.7% for non‐ICU patients.

Conclusions

Older age, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity are independent predictors of IHCA in patients with COVID‐19. Although the incidence is much lower than in ICU patients, approximately one‐quarter of IHCA events in patients with COVID‐19 occur in non‐ICU settings, with the latter having a substantially lower survival to discharge rate.

Recognition in Emergency Department of Septic Patients at Higher Risk of Death: Beware of Patients without Fever

Background and Objectives: Chances of surviving sepsis increase markedly upon prompt diagnosis and treatment. As most sepsis cases initially show-up in the Emergency Department (ED), early recognition of a septic patient has a pivotal role in sepsis management, despite the lack of precise guidelines. The aim of this study was to identify the most accurate predictors of in-hospital mortality outcome in septic patients admitted to the ED. Materials and Methods: We compared 651 patients admitted to ED for sepsis (cases) with 363 controls (non-septic patients). A Bayesian mean multivariate logistic regression model was performed in order to identify the most accurate predictors of in-hospital mortality outcomes in septic patients. Results: Septic shock and positive qSOFA were identified as risk factors for in-hospital mortality among septic patients admitted to the ED. Hyperthermia was a protective factor for in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Physicians should bear in mind that fever is not a criterium for defining sepsis; according to our results, absence of fever upon presentation might be indicative of greater severity and diagnosis of sepsis should not be delayed.

Evaluation of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score plus lactate in critically ill dogs

OBJECTIVES

To apply the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score to dogs admitted to a veterinary ICU, and evaluate whether the addition of lactate increased the predictive ability of the score.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A quick sequential organ failure assessment score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to each dog based on the following criteria: respiratory rate >22 breaths per minute, altered mentation, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg. Lactate was added to quick sequential organ failure assessment in an LqSOFA model and assigned to each patient. Disease processes evaluated included sepsis, congestive heart failure, pneumonia and pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-seven client-owned dogs met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in quick sequential organ failure assessment score between survivors and non-survivors. The use of lactate >3, 4, and 5 mmol/L incorporated into the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (L3qSOFA, L4qSOFA, L5qSOFA) distinguished between survival and non-survival (AUC=0.62; AUC=0.64; AUC=0.62, respectively). Lactate alone distinguished between survival and non-survival (AUC=0.63). Lactate concentration was significantly lower in survivors.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In this study, quick sequential organ failure assessment was not able to predict survival in a general population of critically ill patients. The addition of lactate to the quick sequential organ failure assessment score slightly increased the predictive ability of the score.

The qSOFA score combined with the initial red cell distribution width as a useful predictor of 30 day mortality among older adults with infection in an emergency department

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether the qSOFA and initial red cell distribution width (RDW) in the emergency department (ED) are associated with mortality in older adults with infections who visited the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study conducted in 5 EDs between November 2016 and February 2017. We recorded age, sex, comorbidities, body temperature, clinical findings, and initial laboratory results, including the RDW. The initial RDW values and the qSOFA criteria were obtained at the time of the ED visit. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1,446 patients were finally included in this study, of which 134 (9.3%) died within 30 days and the median (IQR) age was 77 (72, 82) years. In the multivariable analysis, the RDW (14.0-15.4%) and highest RDW (> 15.4%) quartile were shown to be independent risk factors for 30 day mortality (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.12-4.02; p = 0.021) (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.83-6.13; p < 0.001). The patients with qSOFA 2 and 3 were shown to have the high odds ratios of 30-day mortality (OR 3.50; 95% CI 2.09-5.84; p < 0.001) (OR 11.30; 95% CI 5.06-25.23; p < 0.001). The qSOFA combined with the RDW quartile for the prediction of 30 day mortality showed an AUROC value of 0.710 (0.686-0.734).

CONCLUSION

The qSOFA combined with the initial RDW value was associated with 30-day mortality among older adults with infections in the ED. The initial RDW may help emergency physicians predict mortality in older adults with infections visiting the ED.

Sepsis in two hospitals in Rwanda: A retrospective cohort study of presentation, management, outcomes, and predictors of mortality

Purpose

Few studies have assessed the presentation, management, and outcomes of sepsis in low-income countries (LICs). We sought to characterize these aspects of sepsis and to assess mortality predictors in sepsis in two referral hospitals in Rwanda.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective cohort study in two public academic referral hospitals in Rwanda. Data was abstracted from paper medical records of adult patients who met our criteria for sepsis.

Results

Of the 181 subjects who met eligibility criteria, 111 (61.3%) met our criteria for sepsis without shock and 70 (38.7%) met our criteria for septic shock. Thirty-five subjects (19.3%) were known to be HIV positive. The vast majority of septic patients (92.7%) received intravenous fluid therapy (median = 1.0 L within 8 hours), and 94.0% received antimicrobials. Vasopressors were administered to 32.0% of the cohort and 46.4% received mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality for all patients with sepsis was 51.4%, and it was 82.9% for those with septic shock. Baseline characteristic mortality predictors were respiratory rate, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and known HIV seropositivity.

Conclusions

Septic patients in two public tertiary referral hospitals in Rwanda are young (median age = 40, IQR = 29, 59) and experience high rates of mortality. Predictors of mortality included baseline clinical characteristics and HIV seropositivity status. The majority of subjects were treated with intravenous fluids and antimicrobials. Further work is needed to understand clinical and management factors that may help improve mortality in septic patients in LICs.

Comparison of qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS scoring systems for diagnosis, mortality, and morbidity of sepsis in emergency department

PURPOSE

This study was aimed to compare the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) scoring systems for diagnosing sepsis and predicting mortality and morbidity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was designed. qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS scores were calculated at the admission. The diagnosis of sepsis was made with SOFA scoring initially. The morbidity and mortality of the patients were identified during follow-up. Also, the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of three scoring systems were calculated. The scoring systems were compared with ROC analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 463 patients were evaluated. There were 287 (62.0%) patients diagnosed with sepsis, and septic shock occurred in 64 (13.8%) of patients. Seven-day mortality rate was 8.4% (n = 39), 30-day mortality rate was 18.1% (n = 84). The sensitivity for qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS for diagnosis of sepsis was 23%, 77%, 58%, and specificity was 99%, 35%, 81% respectively. The sensitivity of the qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS scoring systems for mortality was 39%, 82%, 77% and specificity 91%, 29%, and 64%, respectively. AUROC values for mortality detected as NEWS = 0.772, qSOFA = 0.758, SIRS = 0.542. According to the ROC analysis, the SIRS system was significantly less useful than the qSOFA and NEWS system in the diagnosis of sepsis and mortality (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

NEWS and qSOFA scoring systems have similar prognosis in both diagnosing sepsis and predicting mortality and both are superior to SIRS.

Emergency mortality of non-trauma patients was predicted by qSOFA score

Objective

This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) in predicting the emergency department (ED) mortality of non-trauma patients and to expand the application scope of qSOFA score.

Methods

A single, retrospective review of non-trauma patients was conducted in ED between November 1, 2016 and November 1, 2019. The qSOFA score was obtained from vital signs and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. The outcome was ED mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the association between the qSOFA score and ED mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, the best cutoff value, sensitivity and specificity were performed to ascertain the predictive value of the qSOFA score.

Results

228(1.96%) of the 11621 patients were died. The qSOFA score was statistically higher in the non-survival group (P<0.001). The qSOFA score 0 subgroup was used as reference baseline, after adjusting for gender and age, adjusted OR of 1, 2 and 3 subgroups were 4.77 (95%CI 3.40 to 6.70), 18.17 (95%CI 12.49 to 26.44) and 23.63 (95%CI 9.54 to 58.52). All these three subgroups show significantly higher ED mortality compared to qSOFA 0 subgroup (P<0.001). AUROC of qSOFA score was 0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79). The best cutoff value was 0, sensitivity was 77.63% (95%CI 71.7% to 82.9%), and specificity was 67.2% (95%CI 66.3% to 68.1%).

Conclusion

The qSOFA score was associated with ED mortality in non-trauma patients and showed good prognostic performance. It can be used as a general tool to evaluate non-trauma patients in ED. This is just a retrospective cohort study, a prospective or a randomized study will be required.

SafeNET: Initial development and validation of a real-time tool for predicting mortality risk at the time of hospital transfer to a higher level of care

Background

Processes for transferring patients to higher acuity facilities lack a standardized approach to prognostication, increasing the risk for low value care that imposes significant burdens on patients and their families with unclear benefits. We sought to develop a rapid and feasible tool for predicting mortality using variables readily available at the time of hospital transfer.

Methods and findings

All work was carried out at a single, large, multi-hospital integrated healthcare system. We used a retrospective cohort for model development consisting of patients aged 18 years or older transferred into the healthcare system from another hospital, hospice, skilled nursing or other healthcare facility with an admission priority of direct emergency admit. The cohort was randomly divided into training and test sets to develop first a 54-variable, and then a 14-variable gradient boosting model to predict the primary outcome of all cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality and transition to comfort measures only or hospice care. For model validation, we used a prospective cohort consisting of all patients transferred to a single, tertiary care hospital from one of the 3 referring hospitals, excluding patients transferred for myocardial infarction or maternal labor and delivery. Prospective validation was performed by using a web-based tool to calculate the risk of mortality at the time of transfer. Observed outcomes were compared to predicted outcomes to assess model performance.

The development cohort included 20,985 patients with 1,937 (9.2%) in-hospital mortalities, 2,884 (13.7%) 30-day mortalities, and 3,899 (18.6%) 90-day mortalities. The 14-variable gradient boosting model effectively predicted in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality (c = 0.903 [95% CI:0.891–0.916]), c = 0.877 [95% CI:0.864–0.890]), and c = 0.869 [95% CI:0.857–0.881], respectively). The tool was proven feasible and valid for bedside implementation in a prospective cohort of 679 sequentially transferred patients for whom the bedside nurse calculated a SafeNET score at the time of transfer, taking only 4–5 minutes per patient with discrimination consistent with the development sample for in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality (c = 0.836 [95%CI: 0.751–0.921], 0.815 [95% CI: 0.730–0.900], and 0.794 [95% CI: 0.725–0.864], respectively).

Conclusions

The SafeNET algorithm is feasible and valid for real-time, bedside mortality risk prediction at the time of hospital transfer. Work is ongoing to build pathways triggered by this score that direct needed resources to the patients at greatest risk of poor outcomes.

The utility of the rapid emergency medicine score (REMS) compared with SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS for Predicting in-hospital Mortality among Patients with suspicion of Sepsis in an emergency department

Background

Many early warning scores (EWSs) have been validated to prognosticate adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis in the Emergency Department (ED). These EWSs include the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). However, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) has never been validated for this purpose. We aimed to assess and compare the prognostic utility of REMS with that of SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS for predicting mortality in patients with suspicion of sepsis in the ED.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study at the ED of Siriraj Hospital Mahidol University, Thailand. Adult patients suspected of having sepsis in the ED between August 2018 and July 2019 were included. Their EWSs were calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was 7-day mortality.

Results

A total of 1622 patients were included in the study; 457 (28.2%) died at hospital discharge. REMS yielded the highest discrimination capacity for in-hospital mortality (the area under the receiver operator characteristics curves (AUROC) 0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59, 0.65)), which was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.58 (95%CI 0.55, 0.60); p = 0.005) and SIRS (AUROC 0.52 (95%CI 0.49, 0.55); p < 0.001) but not significantly superior to NEWS (AUROC 0.61 (95%CI 0.58, 0.64); p = 0.27). REMS was the best EWS in terms of calibration and association with the outcome. It could also provide the highest net benefit from the decision curve analysis. Comparison of EWSs plus baseline risk model showed similar results. REMS also performed better than other EWSs for 7-day mortality.

Conclusion

REMS was an early warning score with higher accuracy than sepsis-related scores (qSOFA and SIRS), similar to NEWS, and had the highest utility in terms of net benefit compared to SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-020-00396-x.

Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

Introduction

This study was proposed to compare the ability and accuracy of modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and qSOFA-65 in predicting the status of nontraumatic patients referred to hospital emergency departments (EDs).

Materials and methods

This study was a prospective design that performed on the 746 nontraumatic patients referred to the ED. Each patient data was collected using a demographic questionnaire, mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 scales. Related variables of each scale were recorded based on patients’ medical records. Then, the outcome of each patient in the ED was followed up and recorded. The severity and specificity of each scale were estimated by the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve at 99% confidence interval (CI).

Results

The mean and standard deviation of scores were as follows: mSOFA = 4.40 ± 2.58, qSOFA = 0.50 ± 0.70, and qSOFA-65 = 0.92 ± 0.96. Patients requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) were identified with AUROC curve as follows: mSOFA = 0.882 (99% CI = 0.778–0.865); qSOFA = 0.717 (99% CI = 0.662–0.773); and qSOFA-65 = 0.771 (99% CI = 0.721–0.820), which showed that mSOFA has higher sensitivity and specificity than the other two scales in identifying patients requiring admission to the ICU.

Conclusion

All three scales were found to be reliable for identifying nontraumatic patients at risk of death and patients requiring admission to the ICU. However, since the time and data required to complete qSOFA and qSOFA-65 are much less than those of mSOFA, it is recommended that qSOFA and especially qSOFA-65 be used in ED to identify critically ill nontraumatic patients.

How to cite this article

Ebrahimian A, Shahcheragh SMT, Fakhr-Movahedi A. Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(11):1045–1050.

Role of qSOFA and SOFA Scoring Systems for Predicting In-Hospital Risk of Deterioration in the Emergency Department

The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the usefulness of quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores for the detection of early (two-day) mortality in patients transported by emergency medical services (EMSs) to the emergency department (ED) (infectious and non-infectious). We performed a multicentric, prospective and blinded end-point study in adults transported with high priority by ambulance from the scene to the ED with the participation of five hospitals. For each score, the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated. We included 870 patients in the final cohort. The median age was 70 years (IQR 54–81 years), and 338 (38.8%) of the participants were women. Two-day mortality was 8.3% (73 cases), and 20.9% of cases were of an infectious pathology. For two-day mortality, the qSOFA presented an AUC of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.75–0.87; p < 0.001) globally with a sensitivity of 84.9 (95% CI: 75.0–91.4) and a specificity of 69.4 (95% CI: 66.1–72.5), and a SOFA of 0.909 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95; p < 0.001) with sensitivity of 87.7 (95% CI: 78.2–93.4) and specificity of 80.7 (95% CI: 77.4–83.3). The qSOFA score can serve as a simple initial assessment to detect high-risk patients, and the SOFA score can be used as an advanced tool to confirm organ dysfunction.

NEWS and qSIRS superior to qSOFA in the prediction of 30-day mortality in emergency department patients in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

We aim to compare the prognostic value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the previous Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and along with their combinations in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This single-centre prospective study recruited a convenience sample of unselected ED patients triaged as category 2 (Emergency) and 3 (Urgent). Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine the Area Under the Curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the various scores.

RESULTS

Of 1253 patients recruited, overall 30-day mortality was 5.7%. The prognostic value for prediction of 30-day mortality, with AUCs for qSOFA ≥2, SIRS ≥2, NEWS ≥5, qSIRS (qSOFA + SIRS) ≥2 and NSIRS (NEWS + SIRS) ≥5 of 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.64 (95%CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.63), respectively. Using pairwise comparisons of ROC curves, NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unselected emergency and urgent ED patients, the prognostic value for NEWS and qSIRS were greater than qSOFA, Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients. Key messages NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality in ED patients. Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients.

Validity of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in Assessing Mortality Rate in the Intensive Care Unit With or Without Sepsis

Introduction

Sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-induced hypotension not improved by adequate fluid resuscitation) are among the most common reasons for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and display high mortality rates. Different scoring systems are used to diagnose and predict the mortality of patients having sepsis. This study aims to validate the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in determining the mortality of both septic and non-septic patients.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in May 2018 in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Past 200 patient records, from January 2018 to April 2018, were examined, and 20 records were discarded due to insufficient data. Sufficient observational data were collected, which was used to assess the validity of the SOFA and qSOFA in determining the mortality rate of sepsis. A comparison of the two modalities was made.

Results

Out of the 200 patients, 180 were enrolled. Data from their entire ICU stay were used to calculate their initial, highest, and mean SOFA and qSOFA. Mean SOFA score up to nine correlated with a mortality rate of up to <79%, while scores 10 and above predicted a 100% mortality rate. A mean qSOFA score of three predicted a 67% mortality rate. Univariate logistic analysis performed with odds ratio showed that the mean qSOFA score was in comparison more closely able to predict mortality, followed by mean SOFA score (p values < 0.01).

Conclusions

This study concluded that both SOFA and qSOFA scores are good predictors of mortality. However, qSOFA is more closely accurate in predicting mortality than SOFA. But further analysis with larger sample size for a longer duration as well as the application of these scores in the emergency departments and general wards can prove the precision of this study.

Usefulness of ischemia-modified albumin in the diagnosis of sepsis/septic shock in the emergency department

Objective

No studies have evaluated the diagnostic value of ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) for the early detection of sepsis/septic shock in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). We aimed to assess the usefulness of IMA in diagnosing sepsis/septic shock in the ED.

Methods

This retrospective, observational study analyzed IMA, lactate, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin levels measured within 1 hour of ED arrival. Patients with suspected infection meeting at least two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were included and classified into the infection, sepsis, and septic shock groups using Sepsis-3 definitions. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine diagnostic performance.

Results

This study included 300 adult patients. The AUC (95% CI) of IMA levels (cut-off ≥85.5 U/mL vs. ≥87.5 U/mL) was higher for the diagnosis of sepsis than for that of septic shock (0.729 [0.667–0.791] vs. 0.681 [0.613–0.824]) and was higher than the AUC of procalcitonin levels (cut-off ≥1.58 ng/mL, 0.678 [0.613–0.742]) for the diagnosis of sepsis. When IMA and lactate levels were combined, the AUCs were 0.815 (0.762–0.867) and 0.806 (0.754–0.858) for the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock, respectively. IMA levels independently predicted sepsis (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.029) and septic shock (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.11; P=0.002).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that IMA levels are a useful biomarker for diagnosing sepsis/ septic shock early, and their combination with lactate levels can enhance the predictive power for early diagnosis of sepsis/septic shock in the ED.

The Effect of L-Carnitine on Mortality Rate in Septic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trial studies have reported that L-carnitine supplementation can reduce the mortality rate in patients with sepsis, but there are no definitive results in this context. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of L-carnitine supplementation on 28-day and one-year mortality in septic patients.

METHODS

A systematic search conducted on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2019 without any language restriction. The publications were reviewed based on the Cochrane handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). To compare the effects of L-carnitine with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled according to the random effects model.

RESULTS

Across five enrolled clinical trials, we found that L-carnitine supplementation reduce one-year mortality in septic patients with SOFA> 12 (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96; P= 0.03) but had no significant effect on reducing 28-day mortality ((RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.28; P= 0.65) compared to placebo. Finally, we observed that based on current trials, L-carnitine supplementation may not have clinically a significant effect on mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

L-carnitine patients with higher SOFA score can reduce the mortality rate. However, the number of trials, study duration and using a dosage of L-carnitine are limited in this context and further large prospective trials are required to clarify the effect of L-carnitine on mortality rate in septic patients.

The Prevalence and Outcomes of Sepsis in Adult Patients in Two Hospitals in Malawi

There are an estimated 19.4 million sepsis cases every year, many of them in low-income countries. The newly adopted definition of sepsis uses Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA), a score which is not feasible in many low-resource settings. A simpler quick-SOFA (qSOFA) based solely on vital signs score has been devised for identification of suspected sepsis. This study aimed to determine in-hospital prevalence and outcomes of sepsis, as defined as suspected infection and a qSOFA score of 2 or more, in two hospitals in Malawi. The secondary aim was to evaluate qSOFA as a predictor of mortality. A cross-sectional study of adult in-patients in two hospitals in Malawi was conducted using prospectively collected single-day point-prevalence data and in-hospital follow-up. Of 1,135 participants, 81 (7.1%) had sepsis. Septic patients had a higher hospital mortality rate (17.5%) than non-septic infected patients (9.0%, p = 0.027, odds ratio 2.1 [1.1-4.3]), although the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics. For in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection, qSOFA ≥ 2 had a sensitivity of 31.8%, specificity of 82.1%, a positive predictive value of 17.5%, and a negative predictive value of 91.0%. In conclusion, sepsis is common and is associated with a high risk of death in admitted patients in hospitals in Malawi. In low-resource settings, qSOFA score that uses commonly available vital signs data may be a tool that could be used for identifying patients at risk-both for those with and without a suspected infection.

Comparison of the Predictive Performances of qSOFA, APACHE II, and SGS for Evaluation of the Disease Prognosis of CCHF Patients at the Emergency Department

In this study, we compared the predictive performances of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) scores, and the severity grading score (SGS) for evaluation of the disease prognosis of patients with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) at the emergency department. We recorded the qSOFA, SGS, and APACHE II scores at admission and at the 72nd and 120th hour in 97 patients admitted to the emergency department and diagnosed with CCHF. In our study, the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve values of qSOFA, SGS, and APACHE II at admission were found to be 0.640, 0.824, and 0.576, respectively. No statistical significance was found for a qSOFA score ≥ 2 at admission as a predictor of mortality. The use of qSOFA score for diseases with a mortal prognosis such as CCHF is insufficient in predicting the prognosis.

Efficacy of the quick sequential organ failure assessment for predicting clinical outcomes among community-acquired pneumonia patients presenting in the emergency department

Background

The study aimed to investigate the predictive value of the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) for clinical outcomes in emergency patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

Methods

A total of 742 CAP cases from the emergency department (ED) were enrolled in this study. The scoring systems including the qSOFA, SOFA and CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure and age) were used to predict the prognostic outcomes of CAP in ICU-admission, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and 28-day mortality. According to the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the accuracies of prediction of the scoring systems were analyzed among CAP patients.

Results

The AUC values of the qSOFA, SOFA and CURB-65 scores for ICU-admission among CAP patients were 0.712 (95%CI: 0.678–0.745, P < 0.001), 0.744 (95%CI: 0.711–0.775, P < 0.001) and 0.705 (95%CI: 0.671–0.738, P < 0.001), respectively. For ARDS, the AUC values of the qSOFA, SOFA and CURB-65 scores were 0.730 (95%CI: 0.697–0.762, P < 0.001), 0.724 (95%CI: 0.690–0.756, P < 0.001) and 0.749 (95%CI: 0.716–0.780, P < 0.001), respectively. After 28 days of follow-up, the AUC values of the qSOFA, SOFA and CURB-65 scores for 28-day mortality were 0.602 (95%CI: 0.566–0.638, P < 0.001), 0.587 (95%CI: 0.551–0.623, P < 0.001) and 0.614 (95%CI: 0.577–0.649, P < 0.001) in turn. There were no statistical differences between qSOFA and SOFA scores for predicting ICU-admission (Z = 1.482, P = 0.138), ARDS (Z = 0.321, P = 0.748) and 28-day mortality (Z = 0.573, P = 0.567). Moreover, we found no differences to predict the ICU-admission (Z = 0.370, P = 0.712), ARDS (Z = 0.900, P = 0.368) and 28-day mortality (Z = 0.768, P = 0.442) using qSOFA or CURB-65 scores.

Conclusion

qSOFA was not inferior to SOFA or CURB-65 scores in predicting the ICU-admission, ARDS and 28-day mortality of patients presenting in the ED with CAP.

Performance of the quick SOFA in very old ICU patients admitted with sepsis

BACKGROUND

The number of very elderly ICU patients (abbreviated to VOPs; ≥80 years) with sepsis increases. Sepsis was redefined in 2016 (sepsis 3.0) using the quick SOFA (qSOFA) score. Since then, multiple studies have validated qSOFA for prognostication in different patient categories, but the prognostic value in VOPs with sepsis is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including patients admitted to Dutch ICUs with sepsis, in the period 2012 to 2016, evaluating the outcome and the performance of qSOFA, an extended qSOFA model, SOFA, SAPS II, and APACHE IV for hospital mortality.

RESULTS

5969 patients were included, of which 935 VOPs. Crude hospital mortality rates were 19%, 28%, and 39% for patients aged 18-65, 65-80, and ≥80 years respectively. Discriminative performance of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in VOPs was poor (AUC 0.596) and lower than that of SOFA, APACHE IV, and SAPS II (0.704, 0.722, and 0.780 respectively). A qSOFA model extended with several other characteristics (AUC 0.643) was non-inferior to the full SOFA, but still inferior to APACHE IV and SAPS II, for all age groups. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed non-significant p-values for all models. Accuracy for both qSOFA and the extended qSOFA was lower compared to APACHE IV and SAPS II (Brier scores 0.227, 0.223, 0.184, and 0.183 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The qSOFA showed worse discriminative performance to predict mortality than SOFA, APACHE IV, and SAPS II in both VOPs and younger patients admitted with sepsis.

Biomarkers and clinical scores to aid the identification of disease severity and intensive care requirement following activation of an in-hospital sepsis code

BACKGROUND

Few validated biomarker or clinical score combinations exist which can discriminate between cases of infection and other non-infectious conditions following activation of an in-hospital sepsis code, as well as provide an accurate severity assessment of the corresponding host response. This study aimed to identify suitable blood biomarker (MR-proADM, PCT, CRP and lactate) or clinical score (SOFA and APACHE II) combinations to address this unmet clinical need.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study of patients activating the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital sepsis code (ISC) within the emergency department (ED), hospital wards and intensive care unit (ICU). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves, logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to assess performance.

RESULTS

148 patients fulfilled the Vall d'Hebron ISC criteria, of which 130 (87.8%) were retrospectively found to have a confirmed diagnosis of infection. Both PCT and MR-proADM had a moderate-to-high performance in discriminating between infected and non-infected patients following ISC activation, although the optimal PCT cut-off varied significantly across departments. Similarly, MR-proADM and SOFA performed well in predicting 28- and 90-day mortality within the total infected patient population, as well as within patients presenting with a community-acquired infection or following a medical emergency or prior surgical procedure. Importantly, MR-proADM also showed a high association with the requirement for ICU admission after ED presentation [OR (95% CI) 8.18 (1.75-28.33)] or during treatment on the ward [OR (95% CI) 3.64 (1.43-9.29)], although the predictive performance of all biomarkers and clinical scores diminished between both settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that the individual use of PCT and MR-proADM might help to accurately identify patients with infection and assess the overall severity of the host response, respectively. In addition, the use of MR-proADM could accurately identify patients requiring admission onto the ICU, irrespective of whether patients presented to the ED or were undergoing treatment on the ward. Initial measurement of both biomarkers might therefore facilitate early treatment strategies following activation of an in-hospital sepsis code.

Early variation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score to predict in-hospital mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection

BACKGROUND

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score showed good prognostic performance in patients with suspicion of infection in the emergency department (ED). However, previous studies only assessed the performance of individual values of qSOFA during the ED stay. As this score may vary over short timeframes, the optimal time of measurement, and the prognostic value of its variation are unclear. The objective of the present study was to prospectively assess the prognostic value of the change in qSOFA over the first 3 h (ΔqSOFA = qSOFA at 3 h-qSOFA at inclusion).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an international prospective cohort study conducted in 17 EDs in France, Belgium, and Spain. From November 2016 to March 2017, patients with a suspected infection and a qSOFA score of 2 or higher were included and followed up until death or hospital discharge. qSOFA was measured at inclusion, 1 h and 3 h. Primary end point was in-hospital mortality, truncated at 28 days.

RESULTS

Of 534 recruited patients, 512 were included in the analysis. The qSOFA was improved at 3 h (ΔqSOFA < 0) in 287 (55%) patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 27%: 44% when ΔqSOFA greater than 0, 36% when ΔqSOFA = 0, and 18% when ΔqSOFA less than 0. A positive ΔqSOFA was independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio of 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.68). After modeling qSOFA kinetics in the first 3 h, there was a significant difference in adjusted slopes between patients who died and those who survived (0.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with suspected infection presenting to the ED with a qSOFA of 2 or higher, the early change in qSOFA is a strong independent predictor of mortality.

Symptom Management and Supportive Care of Serious COVID-19 Patients and their Families in India

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic is causing a worldwide humanitarian crisis. Old age, comorbid conditions, end-stage organ impairment, and advanced cancer, increase the risk of mortality in serious COVID-19. A subset of serious COVID-19 patients with serious acute respiratory illness may be triaged not to receive aggressive intensive care unit (ICU) treatment and ventilation or may be discontinued from ventilation due to their underlying conditions. Those not eligible for aggressive ICU measures should receive appropriate symptom management. Early warning scores (EWS), oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate, can facilitate categorizing COVID-19 patients as stable, unstable, and end of life. Breathlessness, delirium, respiratory secretions, and pain, are the key symptoms that need to be assessed and palliated. Palliative sedation measures are needed to manage intractable symptoms. Goals of care should be discussed, and advance care plan should be made in patients who are unlikely to benefit from aggressive ICU measures and ventilation. For patients who are already in an ICU, either ventilated or needing ventilation, a futility assessment is made. If there is a consensus on futility, a family meeting is conducted either virtually or face to face depending on the infection risk and infection control protocol. The family should be sensitively communicated about the futility of ICU measures and foregoing life-sustaining treatment. Family meeting outcomes are documented, and consent for foregoing life-sustaining treatment is obtained. Appropriate symptom management enables comfort at the end of life to all serious COVID-19 patients not receiving or not eligible to receive ICU measures and ventilation.

How to cite this article: Salins N, Mani RK, Gursahani R, Simha S, Bhatnagar S. Symptom Management and Supportive Care of Serious COVID-19 Patients and their Families in India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):435–444.

Predictive value of quick SOFA and revised Baux scores in burn patients

Several scoring systems, such as the Baux score, help predict outcomes in burn patients. The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (composed of a respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, systolic blood pressure of 100 mmHg or less, and altered mental status) is a new bedside index proposed to help identify patients with suspected infection at risk of complications. We hypothesized that qSOFA scores would be associated with in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay (LOS) in patients with burns. We performed a retrospective review of all burn patients admitted between January 2010-March 2017 at an academic, suburban, hospital with a regional burn center. qSOFA scores were calculated as 1 point each for GCS<15, RR≥22, and SBP≤100. A qSOFA value of>2 was considered high risk. Revised Baux (rBaux) scores were calculated as age +%TBSA burned +17 (if inhalation injury). A rBaux score >140 was considered high risk. Univariate, multivariate and receiver operating characteristics analyses were performed to compare qSOFA and rBaux scores. There were 1039 burn admissions during the study period. Mean age was 30 ± 24 years, 66% were male. Mean TBSA was 10 ± 12%, mean injury severity score was 5 ± 8. Mean hospital LOS was 8 ± 24 days, 22 patients (2.1%) died. qSOFA scores were associated with mortality and ICU admission. Of all patients, 80 were high risk by qSOFA and 7 by Baux scores. ROC characteristics of qSOFA and Baux scores for predicting death were sensitivity 36% vs. 32%, specificity 94% vs. 100%, PPV 13% vs. 100%, and NPV 98% vs. 99% respectively. The AUC for qSOFA (0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]) was lower than for Baux (0.99 [95%CI, 0.99-1.00]). Youden's index identified an optimal cutoff of 85 on the Baux score yielding sensitivity 100%, specificity 94%, PPV 27%, and NPV 100% for mortality. Our results indicate that while qSOFA scores were associated with outcomes, a rBaux score had greater predictive value. The optimal rBaux score for predicting all mortality and ICU admission was 85.

Failure of vital sign normalization is more strongly associated than single measures with mortality and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Modified Early Warning Systems (MEWS) scores offer proxies for morbidity and mortality that are easily acquired, but there are limited data on what changing MEWS scores within the ED indicate. We examined the correlation of changing MEWS scores during resuscitation in the ED and in-hospital morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis on medical ED patients with simplified MEWS scores (without urine output or mental status) admitted to a single academic tertiary care center over one year. Triage-to-Last delta MEWS score and Triage-to-Max delta MEWS scores were calculated and correlated to in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, length of stay (LOS) and diagnosis of sepsis.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 8322 ED patients with an ICU admission rate of 17% and a mortality rate of 2%. Every point of worsened MEWS after triage was more strongly associated with all-cause mortality (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.96-2.97) than triage MEWS alone (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.23-1.44; p < 0.001). Likewise, each point of worsened MEWS was associated with increased odds of ICU admission (Triage-to-Last: OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.92-2.33 and Triage-to-Max: OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.45-1.60, respectively). Among patients with suspected infection, similar associations are found.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic vital signs in the emergency department, as categorized by delta MEWS, and failure to normalize abnormalities, were associated with increased mortality, ICU admission, LOS, and the diagnosis of sepsis. Our results suggest that MEWS scores that do not normalize, from triage onward, are more strongly associated with outcome than any single score.

Gram-negative bloodstream infections and sepsis: risk factors, screening tools and surveillance

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Incidence of gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSIs) and sepsis are rising in the UK. Healthcare-associated risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of infection and associated mortality. Current research is focused on identifying high-risk patients and improving the methods used for surveillance.

SOURCES OF DATA

Comprehensive literature search of the topic area using PubMed (Medline). Government, professional and societal publications were also reviewed.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

A range of healthcare-associated risk factors independently associate with the risk of GNBSIs and sepsis.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

There are calls to move away from using simple comorbidity scores to predict the risk of sepsis-associated mortality, instead more advanced multimorbidity models should be considered.

GROWING POINTS AND AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Advanced risk models should be created and evaluated for their ability to predict sepsis-associated mortality. Investigations into the accuracy of NEWS2 to predict sepsis-associated mortality are required.

Screening for sepsis: SIRS or qSOFA? A literature review

In 2016, definitions of sepsis and septic shock were updated to focus on organ dysfunction rather than systemic inflammatory response as the identifying trait. This article aims to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in detecting sepsis in emergency department (ED) patients. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using four databases. A total of 307 articles was identified. After the selection process, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five themes emerged from the meta-analysis: SIRS; qSOFA; timeliness and simplicity; sensitivity versus specificity; and adding lacate. SIRS offered users greater sensitivity when assessing for sepsis. However, qSOFA is a simple bedside tool with greater specificity, which does not require any blood test results. The author created a new qSOFA screening tool, which incorporated the use of point-of-care serum lactate measurement. He found that qSOFA outperforms SIRS as an ED sepsis screening tool with its strengths of efficacy, efficiency and ease. It was also found to differentiate better between uncomplicated infection and sepsis, which can commonly cause trigger fatigue in EDs.

The impact of the Sepsis-3 definition on ICU admission of patients with infection

Background

Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated inflammation following an infection. However, the impact of this definition on patient care is not fully clear. This study investigated the impact of the current definition on ICU admission of patients with infection.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational study over twelve months on consecutive patients presented to our emergency department and admitted for infection. We analyzed the predictive values of the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, the SOFA score and blood lactate regarding ICU admission.

Results

We included 916 patients with the diagnosis of infection. Median age was 74 years (IQR 62–82 years), and 56.3% were males. There were 219 direct ICU admissions and 697 general ward admissions. A qSOFA score of ≥2 points had 52.9% sensitivity and 98.3% specificity regarding sepsis diagnosis. A qSOFA score of ≥2 points had 87.2% specificity but only 39.9% sensitivity to predict ICU admission. A SOFA score of ≥2 points had 97.4% sensitivity, but only 17.1% specificity to predict ICU admission, while a SOFA score of ≥4 points predicted ICU admission with 82.6% sensitivity and 71.7% specificity. The area under the receiver operating curve regarding ICU admission was 0.81 (95 CI, 0.77–0.86) for SOFA score, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.48–0.61) for blood lactate, and only 0.34 (95% CI, 0.28–0.40) for qSOFA on emergency department presentation.

Conclusions

While a positive qSOFA score had a high specificity regarding ICU admission, the low sensitivity of the score among septic patients as well as among ICU admissions considerably limited its value in routine patient management. The SOFA score was the better predictor of ICU admission, while the predictive value of blood lactate was equivocal.

Clinical Scores and Formal Triage for Screening of Sepsis and Adverse Outcomes on Arrival in an Emergency Department All-Comer Cohort

BACKGROUND

Early recognition of sepsis remains a major challenge. The clinical utility of the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is still undefined. Several studies have tested its prognostic value. However, its ability to diagnose sepsis is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare the performance of qSOFA, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and formal triage with the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) algorithm to identify patients with sepsis and predict adverse outcomes on arrival in an emergency department (ED) all-comer cohort.

METHODS

We included all patients presenting consecutively to the ED during a 3-week period. We used vital signs recorded at triage to calculate the study scores. Two independent assessors retrospectively assigned the primary outcome of sepsis according to Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock criteria in a chart review process.

RESULTS

There were 2523 cases included in the analysis and 39 (1.6%) had the primary outcome of sepsis. The area under the curve for sepsis was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.86) for qSOFA, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87) for SIRS, 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) for NEWS, and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for ESI.

CONCLUSIONS

qSOFA offered high specificity for the prediction of sepsis and adverse outcomes. However, its low sensitivity does not support widespread use as a screening tool for sepsis. NEWS outperformed qSOFA for prediction of adverse outcomes and screening for sepsis.

The prognostic performance of Sepsis-3 and SIRS criteria for patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis transferred to ICU following surgical interventions

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.