External Validation of the qSOFA Score in Emergency Department Patients With Pneumonia

National Early Warning Score 2 is superior to quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in predicting mortality in sepsis patients presenting to the emergency department in India: A prospective observational study

Background

High in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients remains challenging for clinicians worldwide. Early recognition, prognostication, and aggressive management are essential for treating septic patients. Many scores have been formulated to guide clinicians to predict the early deterioration of such patients. Our objective was to compare predictive values of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) with respect to in-hospital mortality.

Methods

This prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care center in India. Adults with suspected infection with at least two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria presenting to the emergency department (ED) were enrolled. NEWS2 and qSOFA scores were calculated, and patients were followed until their primary outcome of mortality or hospital discharge. The diagnostic accuracy of qSOFA and NEWS2 for predicting mortality was analyzed.

Results

Three hundred and seventy-three patients were enrolled. Overall mortality was 35.12%. A majority of patients had LOS between 2 and 6 days (43.70%). NEWS2 had higher area under curve at 0.781 (95% confidence interval [CI] (0.59, 0.97)) than qSOFA at 0.729 (95% CI [0.51, 0.94]), with P < 0.001. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic efficiency to predict mortality by NEWS2 were 83.21% (95% CI [83.17%, 83.24%]); 57.44% (95% CI [57.39%, 57.49%]); and 66.48% (95% CI [66.43%, 66.53%]), respectively. qSOFA score had sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic efficiency to predict mortality of 77.10% (95% CI [77.06%, 77.14%]); 42.98% (95% CI [42.92%, 43.03%]); and 54.95% (95% CI [54.90%, 55.00%]), respectively.

Conclusion

NEWS2 is superior to qSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality for sepsis patients presenting to the ED in India.

SOFA Score in relation to Sepsis: Clinical Implications in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognostic Assessment

Purpose

To analyze the clinical significance of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic assessment of sepsis.

Methods

140 patients with sepsis from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected as the observation group, and 40 healthy people were selected as the control group. The observation group was divided into mild group, severe group, and septic shock group by single blind grouping according to the condition of the disease, and they were also divided into survival group and death group according to the prognosis. Collect the fasting venous blood of the subjects in each group in the morning, compare the levels of total bilirubin (TBIL), blood creatinine (CR), and platelet count (PLT) in each group, and record and compare the patients' respiratory system oxygen partial pressure/inhaled oxygen concentration (po2/fio2), acute physiology and chronic health scoring system II (APACHE II), sequential organ failure assessment (sofa) score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score; Pearson analysis was used to analyze the correlation between SOFA score and other indicators; multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the prognostic risk factors of patients with sepsis; receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to analyze the value of SOFA score alone and in combination in the diagnosis, condition, and prognosis of sepsis.

Results

There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, and serum creatinine (SCR) between the control group and the observation group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, mean arterial pressure (map) po2/fio2, PLT, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score among patients in mild, severe, and septic shock groups (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in age, Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score between survival group and death group (P < 0.05). SOFA score and q-SOFA score were significantly positively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly negatively correlated with po2/fio2 and PLT; △SOFA score was significantly negatively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly positively correlated with map, po2/fio2, PLT, and GCS. Apache II score, SOFA score, and q-SOFA score were independent risk factors for sepsis patients, and △SOFA score, po2/fio2, and GCS score were protective factors (P < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of sepsis combined with SOFA score and q-SOFA score was 0.880; the AUC of sepsis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.929; the AUC of sepsis prognosis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.900.

Conclusion

SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were abnormally expressed in patients with sepsis and were risk factors for the severity of the patient's condition and prognosis. The SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were risk factors for the severity and prognosis of patients with sepsis and had some value in diagnosing sepsis and assessing the condition and prognosis, of which the combined value of the three was higher.

Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

Objective

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score in comparison to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department (ED) patients.

Methods

Eligible studies comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting in-hospital death of ED patients were identified from searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Raw data were collected, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated for qSOFA and SIRS. The summary receiver operating curve was also plotted to calculate the area under the curve.

Results

A total of 16 prospective studies with 35,756 patients and 2,285 deaths were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32–0.54) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.73–0.86) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84–0.93) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.3–0.5) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.8) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62–0.72) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was observed for both qSOFA and SIRS studies.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggested that qSOFA had a higher specificity but a lower sensitivity as compared with SIRS in predicting in-hospital mortality in the ED patients. qSOFA appeared to be a more concise and simple way to recognize patients at high risk for death. However, the use of SIRS in the ED cannot be completely replaced since the sensitivity of qSOFA was relatively lower.

qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the discriminatory capacity of quick sequential [sepsis-related] organ failure assessment (qSOFA) versus IDSA/ATS minor criteria for predicting mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

An observational prospective cohort study of 2116 patients with CAP was performed. Construct validity was determined using Cronbach α. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI).

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.43%. Mortality was 25.96% for patients with a qSOFA score of 2 or higher versus 3.05% for those with a qSOFA score less than 2 (odds ratio for mortality 6.57, P < 0.0001), and 13.85% for patients with at least 3 minor criteria versus 2.03% for those with 2 or fewer minor criteria (odds ratio for mortality 2.27, P < 0.0001). qSOFA had a higher correlation with mortality than minor criteria, as well as higher internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.43 versus 0.14) and diagnostic values of individual elements (larger AUROCs and higher Youden's indices). qSOFA ≥2 was less sensitive but more specific for predicting mortality than ≥3 minor criteria (qSOFA sensitivity 59.6%, specificity 88.3% and positive likelihood ratio 5.11 versus ≥3 minor criteria sensitivity 80.1%, specificity 65.8% and positive likelihood ratio 2.34). The predictive validity of qSOFA was good for mortality (AUROC = 0.868), was statistically greater than minor criteria, was equal to pneumonia severity index, and was inferior compared with CURB-65 (AUROC, 0.824, 0.902, 0.919; NRI, 0.088, -0.068, -0.103; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The qSOFA predicted mortality in CAP better than IDSA/ATS minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. qSOFA as a bedside prompt might be positioned as a proxy for minor criteria and increase the recognition and thus merit more appropriate management of CAP patients likely to fare poorly, which might have implications for more accurate clinical triage decisions.

The Impact of Risk Factors on Treatment Outcomes of Nosocomial Pneumonia Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria in the Intensive Care Unit

Introduction

Nosocomial pneumonia is a common infection associated with high mortality in hospitalized patients. Nosocomial pneumonia, caused by gram-negative bacteria, often occurs in the elderly and patients with co-morbid diseases.

Methods

Original research using a prospective cross-sectional design was conducted on 281 patients in an intensive care unit setting with nosocomial pneumonia between July 2015 and July 2019. For each nosocomial pneumonia case, data regarding comorbidities, risk factors, patient characteristics, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), and quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) points and treatment outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed by SPSS 22.0.

Results

Nosocomial pneumonia due to gram-negative bacteria occurred in patients with neurological disorders (34.87%), heart diseases (16.37%), chronic renal failure (7.12%), and post-surgery (10.68%). Worse outcomes attributed to nosocomial pneumonia were high at 75.8%. Mechanical ventilation, change of antibiotics, and CCI ≥ 3 and qSOFA ≥ 2 were significantly negative prognostic factors (p < 0.05) on outcomes of nosocomial pneumonia. There was no difference in treatment effects between gender, age, time of onset pneumonia, SIRS score (p > 0.05). The pathogens were significant factors that influence treatment effects, but they weren't independent risk factors for poor outcomes (p = 0.823).

Conclusions

Patients with nosocomial pneumonia hospitalized in intensive care units are usually associated with many underlying diseases, including neurological diseases. Mechanical ventilation, a change in antibiotics, CCI ≥ 3, and qSOFA ≥ 2 are also associated with a worse prognosis of nosocomial pneumonia. CCI and qSOFA might be used in predicting the outcome of nosocomial pneumonia.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-021-00175-4.

Prognostic accuracy of Quick SOFA in older adults hospitalised with community acquired urinary tract infection

INTRODUCTION

Quick [Sepsis-related] Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a prognostic score based on sepsis-3 definition, easy to carry out, whose application has been studied in older adults with sepsis from different sources and respiratory sepsis. However, to date no study has analysed its prognostic accuracy in older adults admitted to hospital with community urinary tract infection.

METHODS

In a prospective study of 282 older adults admitted to hospital with community acquired urinary tract infection, the application of qSOFA to predict hospital mortality was analysed. The predictive capacity of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality was compared with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome score (SIRS) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), which require laboratory test in order to be calculated.

RESULTS

In a population with a median age of 81 years, where 51.8% were males and 10.6% had septic shock, qSOFA showed sensibility and specificity of 88.46 and 75.78% and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) of 0.810. AUROC for qSOFA was significantly higher than that of SIRS (AUROC 0.597, P = .005) and with no statistical differences with SOFA (AUROC 0.841, P = .635).

CONCLUSION

qSOFA showed a better predictive prognostic accuracy than SIRS and similar to SOFA in older adults admitted to hospital with community acquired urinary tract infection, having the advantage of not requiring laboratory tests.

External Validation and Recalibration of the CURB-65 and PSI for Predicting 30-Day Mortality and Critical Care Intervention in Multiethnic Patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To validate and recalibrate the CURB-65 and pneumonia severity index (PSI) in predicting 30-day mortality and critical care intervention (CCI) in a multiethnic population with COVID-19, along with evaluating both models in predicting CCI.

METHODS

Retrospective data was collected for 1181 patients admitted to the largest hospital in Qatar with COVID-19 pneumonia. The area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, and other metrics were bootstrapped to examine the performance of the models. Variables constituting the CURB-65 and PSI scores underwent further analysis using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) along with logistic regression to develop a model predicting CCI. Complex machine learning models were built for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The PSI performed better than CURB-65 in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC 0.83, 0.78 respectively), while CURB-65 outperformed PSI in predicting CCI (AUC 0.78, 0.70 respectively). The modified PSI/CURB-65 model (respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, hematocrit, age, sodium, and glucose) predicting CCI had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.823) and good calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study recalibrated, externally validated the PSI and CURB-65 for predicting 30-day mortality and CCI, and developed a model for predicting CCI. Our tool can potentially guide clinicians in Qatar to stratify patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Cancer and COVID-19: analysis of patient outcomes

Background: We sought to investigate the outcomes associated with COVID-19 disease in cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Results: Of the 206 patients included, 57 had at least one preexisting malignancy. Cancer patients were older than noncancer patients. Of the 185 discharged cases, cancer patients had a significantly higher frequency of unplanned reintubation (7.1% vs 0.9%, p < 0.049), and required longer hospital stay (8.58 ± 6.50 days versus 12.83 ± 11.44 days, p < 0.002). Regression analysis revealed that obesity and active smoking were associated with an increased risk of mortality. Conclusion: Outcomes in COVID-19 appear to be driven by obesity as well as active smoking, with no difference in mortality between cancer and noncancer patients.

In this study, we aimed to investigate how COVID-19 affected cancer patients and whether this altered their survival outcomes. To do this, we examined data from a database of patients who have passed through our institution – a retrospective cohort analysis. Of the 206 patients we included in the study from this database, 57 had at least one preexisting cancer. Cancer patients tended to be older than noncancer patients. Of the 185 discharged patients, cancer patients required longer hospital stays, but there was no difference in mortality. Disease complications and intensive care unit admission with obesity and active smoking put patients in our cohort at increased risk of death. To conclude, outcomes in COVID-19 patients appear to be driven by obesity as well as active smoking, with no difference in mortality between cancer and noncancer patients.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

DESIGN

PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network.

KEY RESULTS

We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

Asthma in COVID-19 patients: An extra chain fitting around the neck?

Introduction

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread across the globe. Pre-existing comorbidities have been found to have a dramatic effect on the disease course. We sought to analyze the effect of asthma on the disease progression and outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

We conducted a multi-center retrospective study of positively confirmed COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 502 COVID-19 adult patients (72 asthma and 430 non-asthma cohorts) with mean age of 60.7 years were included in the study. The frequency of asthma in hospitalized cohorts was 14.3%. Univariate analysis revealed that asthma patients were more likely to be obese (75% versus 54.2%, p = 0.001), with a higher frequency of intubation (40.3% versus 27.8%, p = 0.036), and required a longer duration of hospitalization (15.1 ± 12.5 versus 11.5 ± 10.6, p = 0.015). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that asthmatic patients were not associated with higher risk of ICU admission (OR = 1.81, 95%CI = 0.98–3.09, p = 0.06), endotracheal intubation (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 0.99–3.04, p = 0.06) or complications (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 0.82–2.31, p = 0.23). Asthmatic patients were not associated with higher odds of prolonged hospital length of stay (OR = 1.48, 95%CI = 0.82–2.66, p = 0.20) or with ICU stay (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.28–2.02, p = 0.58). Kaplan-Meier curve showed no significant difference in the overall survival of the two groups (p = 0.65).

Conclusion

Despite the increased prevalence of hospitalization in elder asthmatic COVID-19 patients, after adjustment for other variables, it was neither associated with increased severity nor worse outcomes.

•

Asthma is more prevalent in COVID-19 cohort than in the general population.

•

Asthma was neither associated with disease severity nor negative outcomes.

•

Asthma does not imply a worse outcome as compared to non-asthmatics.

Validation of the qSOFA score compared to the CRB-65 score for risk prediction in community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

The qSOFA (quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score shows similarities to the CRB-65 pneumonia score, but its prognostic accuracy in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has not been extensively evaluated. Our aim was to validate the qSOFA (-65) score in a large cohort of CAP patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study including all CAP cases hospitalized between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2018 from the German nationwide mandatory quality assurance programme. We excluded cases transferred from another hospital, with mechanical ventilation present on admission, and without documented respiratory rate. Predefined outcomes were hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

Among the 1,262,250 included cases, hospital mortality was 12.4% and the mechanical ventilation rate was 7.1%. All CRB and qSOFA criteria were associated with both outcomes, but the qSOFA had inferior sensitivity compared to the CRB-65 for mortality prediction. Including the age criterion ≥65 years, qSOFA-65 and CRB-65 performed similarly (AUC 0.69, 95%CI 0.69-0.69 versus 0.68, 95%CI 0.68-0.68). A qSOFA-65 of 0 was associated with fewer missed deaths (3328, 2.0%) compared to a CRB-65 of 0 (5480, 2.4%). The sensitivity of the suggested qSOFA cut-off of ≥2 for sepsis was low (mortality 25.8%, 95%CI 25.6-26.0%; mechanical ventilation 24.1%, 95%CI 23.8-24.4%). Results were similar when frail and palliative patients were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The qSOFA parameters show prognostic accuracy similar to the CRB parameters in CAP, but the sepsis cut-off of ≥2 lacked sensitivity. For sensitive mortality prediction, the age criterion ≥65 years should be added to the qSOFA.