Comparison of severity score models based on different sepsis definitions to predict in-hospital mortality among sepsis patients in the Intensive Care Unit

The Predictive Value of Sepsis Scores for In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Left-Sided Infective Endocarditis

BACKGROUND

As infective endocarditis has particular characteristics compared to other infectious diseases, it is not clear if sepsis scores are reported with good accuracy in these patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the qSOFA and SOFA scores to predict mortality in patients with infective endocarditis.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and June 2019, 867 patients with suspected left-sided endocarditis were evaluated; 517 were included with left-sided infective endocarditis defined as "possible" or "definite" endocarditis, according to the Modified Duke Criteria. ROC curves were constructed to assess the accuracy of qSOFA and SOFA sepsis scores for the prediction of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The median age was 57 years, 65% were male, 435 (84%) had pre-existing heart valve disease, and the overall mortality was 28%. The most frequent etiologies were Streptococcus spp. (36%), Enterococcus spp. (10%), and Staphylococcus aureus (9%). The sepsis scores from the ROC curves used to predict in-hospital mortality were qSOFA 0.601 (CI95% 0.522-0.681) and SOFA score 0.679 (CI95% 0.602-0.756). A sub-group analysis in patients with and without pre-existing valve disease for SOFA ≥ 2 showed ROC curves of 0.627 (CI95% 0.563-0.690) and 0.775 (CI95% 0.594-0.956), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

qSOFA and SOFA scores were associated with increased in-hospital mortality in patients with infective endocarditis. However, as accuracy was relatively lower compared to other sites of bacterial infections, we believe that this score may have lower accuracy when predicting the prognosis of patients with IE, because, in this disease, the patient's death may be more frequently linked to valvular and cardiac dysfunction, as well as embolic events, and less frequently directly associated with sepsis.

Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, MEWS, and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality rate of patients with sepsis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies classified patients with sepsis and predicted their mortality by using some evaluation scales. Several studies reported significant differences in the predictive values of several tools, and the non-uniformity of the cut-off value.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria in predicting the mortality of patients with sepsis.

METHODS

This study comprised of systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from their establishment to July 31, 2022. The research articles published in the index journals provide sufficient data (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative results) for patients with sepsis. The combined sensitivity and specificity of the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the bivariate random effect model (BRM). The hierarchical overall subject working characteristics (HSROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the accuracy of the overall prognosis.

RESULTS

Data of 55 088 patients from 32 studies were included in this meta-analysis. SOFA had an intermediate sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) and a specificity of 0.70 (0.63-0.76). SIRS criteria had the highest sensitivity of 0.75 (0.66-0.82) and the lowest specificity of 0.40 (0.29-0.52). MEWS had the lowest sensitivity of 0.49 (0.40-0.59) and the highest specificity of 0.82 (0.78-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Among SOFA, MEWS, and SIRS criteria, SOFA showed moderate sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis, the highest sensitivity of SIRS and the strongest specificity of MEWS for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis. The future research direction is to combine the relevant indicators of MEWS and SIRS to develop a measurement tool with high reliability and validity.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The review provides useful insights into the prognostic accuracy of different assessment tools in predicting mortality in sepsis patients, which will help clinicians choose the most appropriate tool for early identification and treatment of sepsis. The findings may also contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable prognostic models for sepsis.

Four Assessment Tools for Predicting Mortality and Adverse Events in Surgical Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate for sepsis and septic shock in surgical patients is approximately 36%, which is higher than that of other medical patients. Predisposition, infection/injury, response, and organ dysfunction (PIRO) is currently the most widely used tool for assessing patients with surgical sepsis. However, it is not a standardized assessment tool for surgical patients in general.

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to (a) create a modified PIRO (mPIRO) that adds a count of platelets and does not include a body temperature reading; (b) test the sensitivity and specificity of the mPIRO for predicting mortality and adverse events among patients with surgical sepsis; and (c) compare the predictive accuracy of the mPIRO, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA, and PIRO tools.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted. Two thousand fifty-five patient medical records were reviewed, with 103 identified as meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Compared with the other tools, mPIRO ≥ 4 achieved better sensitivity (90.5%) in predicting mortality and high sensitivity (72%) and specificity (80%) in predicting adverse events. mPIRO was the most accurate predictor of mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.83) among the tools considered. SOFA and mPIRO were the first and second most accurate predictor of adverse events, respectively, with respective AUC values of 0.86 and 0.82.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

mPIRO, which employs an easy-to-use scoring system, is a valid assessment tool with good sensitivity and AUC for predicting both mortality and adverse events in patients with surgical sepsis. We recommend using mPIRO ≥ 3 as an indicator of potential adverse events.

Prospective international validation of the predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) clinical staging system among intensive care and general ward patients

Background

Stratifying patients with sepsis was the basis of the predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) concept, an attempt to resolve the heterogeneity in treatment response. The purpose of this study is to perform an independent validation of the PIRO staging system in an international cohort and explore its utility in the identification of patients in whom time to antibiotic treatment is particularly important.

Methods

Prospective international cohort study, conducted over a 6-month period in five Portuguese hospitals and one Australian institution. All consecutive adult patients admitted to selected wards or the intensive care, with infections that met the CDC criteria for lower respiratory tract, urinary, intra-abdominal and bloodstream infections were included.

Results

There were 1638 patients included in the study. Patients who died in hospital presented with a higher PIRO score (10 ± 3 vs 8 ± 4, p < 0.001). The observed mortality was 3%, 15%, 24% and 34% in stage I, II, III and IV, respectively, which was within the predicted intervals of the original model, except for stage IV patients that presented a lower mortality. The hospital survival rate was 84%. The application of the PIRO staging system to the validation cohort resulted in a positive predictive value of 97% for stage I, 91% for stage II, 85% for stage III and 66% for stage IV. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was 0.75 for the all cohort and 0.70 if only patients with bacteremia were considered. Patients in stage III and IV who did not have antibiotic therapy administered within the desired time frame had higher mortality rate than those who have timely administration of antibiotic.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first external validation of this PIRO staging system and it performed well on different patient wards within the hospital and in different types of hospitals. Future studies could apply the PIRO system to decision-making about specific therapeutic interventions and enrollment in clinical trials based on disease stage.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-021-00966-7.

Performance of the Simple Clinical Score (SCS) and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) to predict severity level and mortality rate among patients with sepsis in the emergency department

Nurses play a key role as the first line of service for patients with medical conditions and injuries in the emergency department (ED), which includes assessing patients for sepsis. The researchers evaluated tools to examine the performance of the Simple Clinical Score (SCS) and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) to predict sepsis severity and mortality among sepsis patients in the ED. A retrospective survey was performed, selecting participants by using a purposive sampling method, and including the medical records of all patients diagnosed with sepsis admitted to the ED at Singburi Hospital, Thailand. Data were analysed using the ROC curve and the Area Under Curve (AUC) to calculate the accuracy of each patient's mortality prediction. A total of 225 patients diagnosed with sepsis was identified, with a mortality rate of 59.11% after admission to the medical service and intensive care unit. The AUC analysis showed that the accuracy of the model generated from the REMS (88.6%) was higher than that of the SCS (76.7%). The authors also recommend that key variables identified in this research should be used to develop screening and assessment tools for sepsis in the context of the ED.

Canine parvovirus: a predicting canine model for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a severe condition associated with high prevalence and mortality rates. Parvovirus enteritis is a predisposing factor for sepsis, as it promotes intestinal bacterial translocation and severe immunosuppression. This makes dogs infected by parvovirus a suitable study population as far as sepsis is concerned. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate the differences between two sets of SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) criteria in outcome prediction: SIRS 1991 and SIRS 2001. The possibility of stratifying and classifying septic dogs was assessed using a proposed animal adapted PIRO (Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction) scoring system.

RESULTS

The 72 dogs enrolled in this study were scored for each of the PIRO elements, except for Infection, as all were considered to have the same infection score, and subjected to two sets of SIRS criteria, in order to measure their correlation with the outcome. Concerning SIRS criteria, it was found that the proposed alterations on SIRS 2001 (capillary refill time or mucous membrane colour alteration) were significantly associated with the outcome (OR = 4.09, p < 0.05), contrasting with the 1991 SIRS criteria (p = 0.352) that did not correlate with the outcome. No significant statistical association was found between Predisposition (p = 1), Response (p = 0.1135), Organ dysfunction (p = 0.1135), total PIRO score (p = 0.093) and outcome. To explore the possibility of using the SIRS criteria as a fast decision-making tool, a Fast-and-Frugal tree (FFT) was created with a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 29%.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that increasing the SIRS criteria specificity may improve their prognostic value and their clinical usefulness. In order to improve the proposed PIRO scoring system outcome prediction ability, more specific criteria should be added, mainly inflammatory and organ dysfunction biomarkers.

[Consensus document for sepsis code implementation and development in the Community of Madrid]

The consensus paper for the implementation and development of the sepsis code, finished in April 2017 is presented here. It was adopted by the Regional Office of Health as a working document for the implementation of the sepsis code in the Community of Madrid, both in the hospital setting (acute, middle and long-stay hospitals) and in Primary Care and Out-of-Hospital Emergency Services. It is now published without changes with respect to the original version, having only added the most significant bibliographical references. The document is divided into four parts: introduction, initial detection and assessment, early therapy and organizational recommendations. In the second to fourth sections, 25 statements or proposals have been included, agreed upon by the authors after several face-to-face meetings and an extensive "online" discussion. The annex includes nine tables that are intended as a practical guide to the activation of the sepsis code. Both the content of the recommendations and their formal writing have been made taking into account their applicability in all areas to which they are directed, which may have very different structural and functional characteristics and features, so that we have deliberately avoided a greater degree of concretion: the objective is not that the sepsis code is organized and applied identically in all of them, but that the health resources work in a coordinated manner aligned in the same direction.