Prognostic Accuracy of Quick SOFA is different according to the severity of illness in infectious patients

The use of early warning system scores in prehospital and emergency department settings to predict clinical deterioration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unclear which Early Warning System (EWS) score best predicts in-hospital deterioration of patients when applied in the Emergency Department (ED) or prehospital setting.

Methods

This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis assessed the predictive abilities of five commonly used EWS scores (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its updated version NEWS2, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Acute Physiological Score (RAPS), and Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART)). Outcomes of interest included admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and 3-to-30-day mortality following hospital admission. Using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, pooled estimates were calculated according to the EWS score cut-off points, outcomes, and study setting. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-regressions investigated between-study heterogeneity. Funnel plots tested for publication bias. The SR is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020191254).

Results

Overall, 11,565 articles were identified, of which 20 were included. In the ED setting, MEWS, and NEWS at cut-off points of 3, 4, or 6 had similar pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) to predict 30-day mortality, ranging from 4.05 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.35–6.99) to 6.48 (95% CI 1.83–22.89), p = 0.757. MEWS at a cut-off point ≥3 had a similar DOR when predicting ICU admission (5.54 (95% CI 2.02–15.21)). MEWS ≥5 and NEWS ≥7 had DORs of 3.05 (95% CI 2.00–4.65) and 4.74 (95% CI 4.08–5.50), respectively, when predicting 30-day mortality in patients presenting with sepsis in the ED. In the prehospital setting, the EWS scores significantly predicted 3-day mortality but failed to predict 30-day mortality.

Conclusion

EWS scores’ predictability of clinical deterioration is improved when the score is applied to patients treated in the hospital setting. However, the high thresholds used and the failure of the scores to predict 30-day mortality make them less suited for use in the prehospital setting.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Comparison of the quick SOFA score with Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores in predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the common causes of mortality and morbidity. The Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are frequently used in determining the prognosis and predicting in-hospital adverse events, such as mortality, re-bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements. The quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is easy and swift to calculate. The commonly used scores and the qSOFA score were compared and why and when these scores are most useful was investigated.

METHOD

133 patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over the period of a year, were evaluated in this retrospective study. The RS, GBS and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient, and their relationship with in-hospital adverse events, such as length of hospitalization, rebleeding, endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion requirements, and mortality, was investigated.

RESULTS

The mean overall GBS was 9.72 ± 3.72 (0-19), while that of patients who did not survive was 14.0 ± 1.1 (13-16), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.901, a cutoff value of 12.5, and specificity (Spe) and sensitivity (Sen) of 1 and 0.82, respectively. The median value of the GBS, in terms of transfusion need, was 7.12 ± 4.01 (0-15). (AUC = 0.752, cut-off = 9.5, Spe = 0.79, Sen = 0.69). The median value of the qSOFA score, in terms of intensive care need, was 1.73 ± 0.7 (0-3) (AUC = 0.921, cut-off = 0.5, Spe = 0.93, Sen = 0.79). The RS median, in terms of re-bleeding, was 8.22 ± 0.97 (6-9).

CONCLUSION

Early use of risk stratification scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is important due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality. All scoring systems were effective in predicting mortality, the need for intensive care, and re-bleeding. The GBS had a greater predictive power in terms of mortality and transfusion need, the qSOFA score for intensive care need, and the RS for re-bleeding. The simpler, more efficient, and more easily calculated qSOFA score can be used to estimate the severity of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Prognostic Performance of SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS in Kidney Transplant Recipients Suffering from Infection: A Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic performance of scoring systems for illness severity in infectious kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) is rarely reported. We investigated the ability of the scores for the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) to predict in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement.

METHODS

This was a second analysis of a retrospective observational study. Scores for SIRS, SOFA and qSOFA were calculated upon hospitalization (infection onset was before hospitalization) or on the day of infection onset (infection episodes were during hospitalization). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were ICU admission and MV requirement. Binary logistic regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were employed to assess prognostic performance.

RESULTS

A total of 161 infectious episodes occurred in 97 KTRs. Forty patients (41%) experienced more than one episode. The SOFA score was available in 161 infections, and scores for qSOFA and SIRS were available in 160 infections. The SIRS score was not different between KTRs with opposite outcomes. The qSOFA score was higher in infections necessitating MV. The SOFA score was significantly higher in the deceased, those needing ICU admission, MV, and for those with positive etiology results. The SOFA score was the only independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and MV requirement, and the AUCs were 0.879, 0.815, and 0.784, respectively. The optimum cutoff value of predicting the three outcomes was SOFA score ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The SOFA score (but not those for SIRS and qSOFA) independently predicted in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and MV requirement in infectious KTRs.