Development of a Simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for Risk Assessment of Emergency Department Patients With Sepsis

Racial disparities in septic shock mortality: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Patients with septic shock have the highest risk of death from sepsis, however, racial disparities in mortality outcomes in this cohort have not been rigorously investigated. Our objective was to describe the association between race/ethnicity and mortality in patients with septic shock.

Methods

Our study is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients in the OneFlorida Data Trust (Florida, United States of America) admitted with septic shock between January 2012 and July 2018. We identified patients as having septic shock if they received vasopressors during their hospital encounter and had either an explicit International Classification of Disease (ICD) code for sepsis, or had an infection ICD code and received intravenous antibiotics. Our primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Our secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multiple logistic regression with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for variable selection was used to assess associations.

Findings

There were 13,932 patients with septic shock in our cohort. The mean age was 61 years (SD 16), 68% of the cohort identified as White (n = 9419), 28% identified as Black (n = 3936), 2% (n = 294) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 2% as other races not specified in the previous groups (n = 283). In our logistic regression model for 90-day mortality, patients identified as Black had 1.57 times the odds of mortality (95% CI 1.07-2.29, p = 0.02) compared to White patients. Other significant predictors included mechanical ventilation (OR 3.66, 95% CI 3.35-4.00, p < 0.01), liver disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.59-1.93, p < 0.01), laboratory components of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.21, p < 0.01), lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.12, p < 0.01), congestive heart failure (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30, p < 0.01), human immunodeficiency virus (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.75, p = 0.03), age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.04, p < 0.01), and the interaction between age and race (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.01). Among younger patients (<45 years), patients identified as Black accounted for a higher proportion of the deaths. Results were similar in the in-hospital mortality model.

Interpretation

In this retrospective study of septic shock patients, we found that patients identified as Black had higher odds of mortality compared to patients identified as non-Hispanic White. Our findings suggest that the greatest disparities in mortality are among younger Black patients with septic shock.

Funding

National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (1KL2TR001429); National Institute of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1K23GM144802).

Application Prospect of the SOFA Score and Related Modification Research Progress in Sepsis

In 2016, the SOFA score was proposed as the main evaluation system for diagnosis in the definition of sepsis 3.0, and the SOFA score has become a new research focus in sepsis. Some people are skeptical about diagnosing sepsis using the SOFA score. Experts and scholars from different regions have proposed different, modified versions of SOFA score to make up for the related problems with the use of the SOFA score in the diagnosis of sepsis. While synthesizing the different improved versions of SOFA proposed by experts and scholars in various regions, this paper also summarizes the relevant definitions of sepsis put forward in recent years to build a clear, improved application framework of SOFA score. In addition, the comparison between machine learning and SOFA scores related to sepsis is described and discussed in the article. Taken together, by summarizing the application of the improved SOFA score proposed in recent years in the related definition of sepsis, we believe that the SOFA score is still an effective means of diagnosing sepsis, but in the process of the continuous refinement and development of sepsis in the future, the SOFA score needs to be further refined and improved to provide more accurate coping strategies for different patient populations or application directions regarding sepsis. Against the big data background, machine learning has immeasurable value and significance, but its future applications should add more humanistic references and assistance.

Study protocol to test the efficacy of self-administration of dexmedetomidine sedative therapy on anxiety, delirium, and ventilator days in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: an open-label randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Administration of sedative and opioid medications to patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support in the intensive care unit is a common clinical practice.

METHODS

A two-site randomized open-label clinical trial will test the efficacy of self-management of sedative therapy with dexmedetomidine compared to usual care on anxiety, delirium, and duration of ventilatory support after randomization. Secondary objectives are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on level of alertness, total aggregate sedative and opioid medication exposure, and ventilator-free days up to day 28 after study enrolment. Exploratory objectives of the study are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on 3- and 6-month post-discharge physical and functional status, psychological well-being (depression, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder), health-related quality of life, and recollections of ICU care. ICU patients (n = 190) who are alert enough to follow commands to self-manage sedative therapy are randomly assigned to self-management of sedative therapy or usual care. Patients remain in the ICU sedative medication study phase for up to 7 days as long as mechanically ventilated.

DISCUSSION

The care of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients can change significantly over the course of a 5-year clinical trial. Changes in sedation and pain interventions, oxygenation approaches, and standards related to extubation have substantially impacted consistency in the number of eligible patients over time. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in mandated extended pauses in trial enrolment as well as alterations in recruitment methods out of concern for study personnel safety and availability of protective equipment. Patient triaging among healthcare institutions due to COVID-19 cases also has resulted in inconsistent access to the eligible study population. This has made it even more imperative for the study team to be flexible and innovative to identify and enrol all eligible participants. Patient-controlled sedation is a novel approach to the management of patient symptoms that may be able to alleviate mechanical ventilation-induced distress without serious side effects. Findings from this study will provide insight into the efficacy of this approach on short- and long-term outcomes in a subset of mechanically ventilated patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02819141. Registered on June 29, 2016.

A comparison of qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS in predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis: A meta-analysis

Objective

To identify and compare prognostic accuracy of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to predict mortality in patients with suspected sepsis.

Methods

This meta-analysis followed accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases from establishment of the database to November 29, 2021. The pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model (BRM). Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were generated to assess the overall prognostic accuracy.

Results

Data of 62338 patients from 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. qSOFA had the highest specificity and the lowest sensitivity with a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.86) and a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.39–0.53). SIRS had the highest sensitivity and the lowest specificity with a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.85) and a specificity 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19–0.29). NEWS had both an intermediate sensitivity and specificity with a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63–0.81) and a specificity 0.52 (95% CI: 0.39–0.65). qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS by comparing HSROC curves.

Conclusions

Among qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS, qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS. However, no scoring system has both high sensitivity and specificity for predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis.

The timing of use of risk stratification tools affects their ability to predict mortality from sepsis. A meta-regression analysis

Background: Risk stratification tools (RSTs) are used in healthcare settings to identify patients at risk of sepsis and subsequent adverse outcomes. In practice RSTs are used on admission and thereafter as ‘trigger’ tools prompting sepsis management. However, studies investigating their performance report scores at a single timepoint which varies in relation to admission. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine if the predictive performance of RSTs is altered by the timing of their use. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of studies published from inception to 31 October 2018, using EMBASE and PubMed databases. Any cohort studies investigating the ability of an RST to predict mortality in adult sepsis patients admitted to hospital, from which a 2x2 table was available or could be constructed, were included. The diagnostic performance of RSTs in predicting mortality was the primary outcome. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) were the primary measures, enabling further meta-regression analysis. Results: 47 studies were included, comprising 430,427 patients. Results of bivariate meta-regression analysis found tools using a first-recorded score were less sensitive than those using worst-recorded score (REML regression coefficient 0.57, 95% CI 0.07-1.08). Using worst-recorded score led to a large increase in sensitivity (summary sensitivity 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, for worst-recorded scores vs. 0.64 (0.57-0.71) for first-recorded scores). Scoring system type did not have a significant relationship with studies’ predictive ability. The most analysed RSTs were qSOFA (n=37) and EWS (n=14). Further analysis of these RSTs also found timing of their use to be associated with predictive performance. Conclusion: The timing of any RST is paramount to their predictive performance. This must be reflected in their use in practice, and lead to prospective studies in future.

External validation and comparison of two versions of simplified sequential organ failure assessment scores to predict prognosis of septic patients

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that simplified SOFA scoring system has better clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to validate and compare the scores acquired with simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA), and simplified and accurate sequential organ failure assessment (sa-SOFA) for their accuracies in predicting the prognosis of septic patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted at three major academic hospitals. Clinical data from 574 patients diagnosed with sepsis following the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)were retrospectively retrieved and analysed. Scores from the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) were used as reference scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess the performance of eSOFA and sa-SOFA scores in predicting in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

AUROC analysis demonstrated the predictability of the four scoring systems for sepsis surveillance, listed in descending order as: sa-SOFA, 0.790 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.754-0.822); SOFA, 0.774 (95% CI: 0.738-0.808); eSOFA, 0.729 (95% CI: 0.691-0.765); and qSOFA, 0.618 (95% CI: 0.577-0.658). Moreover, sa-SOFA and SOFA scores (Z = 1.950, P = .051) did not significantly differ from each other in discriminatory power, but the sa-SOFA score had a higher power than eSOFA score (P values < .001).

CONCLUSION

sa-SOFA appeared to have performed better than eSOFA score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients' sepsis. Further large prospective studies are needed to externally validate.

The Use of Different Sepsis Risk Stratification Tools on the Wards and in Emergency Departments Uncovers Different Mortality Risks: Results of the Three Welsh National Multicenter Point-Prevalence Studies

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

To compare the performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, Red Flag Sepsis, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence sepsis risk stratification tools in the identification of patients at greatest risk of mortality from sepsis in nonintensive care environments.

Most emergency department patients meeting sepsis criteria are not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge

OBJECTIVES

Effective sepsis resuscitation depends on useful criteria for prompt identification of eligible patients. These criteria should reliably predict a discharge diagnosis of sepsis, ensuring that interventions are triggered for those who need it while avoiding potentially harmful interventions in those who do not. We sought to determine the proportion of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the emergency department (ED) that was ultimately diagnosed with sepsis and to quantify the subset of nonseptic patients with risk factors for harm from fluid resuscitation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of adult ED patients at a tertiary academic medical center included vital signs and laboratory results from the first 6 hours, plus administration of intravenous antibiotics, to determine if patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 consensus criteria. If these patients also had hypotension and lactic acidosis, we categorized them as Sepsis-3 plus shock. We used discharge ICD-9 codes to determine if patients were ultimately diagnosed with sepsis.

RESULTS

Over 8 years, 3,121 ED patients met 2016 Sepsis-3 criteria in the first 6 hours. Of these, only 25% and 48% met explicit and implicit criteria for a discharge diagnosis of sepsis. Of 1,032 patients with Sepsis-3 plus shock, 48% and 62% met explicit and implicit criteria. Overall, 60% to 75% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria with or without shock did not receive a sepsis discharge diagnosis. At least one plausible risk factor for harm from large-volume fluid resuscitation was identified among 19% to 36% of patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED but not ultimately diagnosed with sepsis at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients meeting sepsis criteria in the ED were not diagnosed with sepsis at discharge. Urgent treatment bundles triggered by consensus criteria in the early phase of ED care may be administered to several patients without sepsis, potentially exposing some to interventions of uncertain benefit and possible harm.

Time for a prehospital-modified sequential organ failure assessment score: An ambulance-Based cohort study

BACKGROUND

To adapt the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to fit the prehospital care needs; to do that, the SOFA was modified by replacing platelets and bilirubin, by lactate, and tested this modified SOFA (mSOFA) score in its prognostic capacity to assess the mortality-risk at 2 days since the first Emergency Medical Service (EMS) contact.

METHODS

Prospective, multicentric, EMS-delivery, ambulance-based, pragmatic cohort study of adults with acute diseases, referred to two tertiary care hospitals (Spain), between January 1st and December 31st, 2020. The discriminative power of the predictive variable was assessed through a prediction model trained using the derivation cohort and evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) on the validation cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1114 participants comprised two separated cohorts recruited from 15 ambulance stations. The 2-day mortality rate (from any cause) was 5.9% (66 cases). The predictive validity of the mSOFA score was assessed by the calculation of the AUC of ROC in the validation cohort, resulting in an AUC of 0.946 (95% CI, 0.913-0.978, p < .001), with a positive likelihood ratio was 23.3 (95% CI, 0.32-46.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Scoring systems are now a reality in prehospital care, and the mSOFA score assesses multiorgan dysfunction in a simple and agile manner either bedside or en route. Patients with acute disease and an mSOFA score greater than 6 points transferred with high priority by EMS represent a high early mortality group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN48326533, Registered Octuber 312,019, Prospectively registered (doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN48326533).

Evaluating a digital sepsis alert in a London multisite hospital network: a natural experiment using electronic health record data

Objective

The study sought to determine the impact of a digital sepsis alert on patient outcomes in a UK multisite hospital network.

Materials and Methods

A natural experiment utilizing the phased introduction (without randomization) of a digital sepsis alert into a multisite hospital network. Sepsis alerts were either visible to clinicians (patients in the intervention group) or running silently and not visible (the control group). Inverse probability of treatment-weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of the intervention on individual patient outcomes.

Outcomes

In-hospital 30-day mortality (all inpatients), prolonged hospital stay (≥7 days) and timely antibiotics (≤60 minutes of the alert) for patients who alerted in the emergency department.

Results

The introduction of the alert was associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.84; n = 21 183), lower odds of prolonged hospital stay ≥7 days (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; n = 9988), and in patients who required antibiotics, an increased odds of receiving timely antibiotics (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.57-1.87; n = 4622).

Discussion

Current evidence that digital sepsis alerts are effective is mixed. In this large UK study, a digital sepsis alert has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes, including timely antibiotics. It is not known whether the presence of alerting is responsible for improved outcomes or whether the alert acted as a useful driver for quality improvement initiatives.

Conclusions

These findings strongly suggest that the introduction of a network-wide digital sepsis alert is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, demonstrating that digital based interventions can be successfully introduced and readily evaluated.

Prevalence of organ failure and mortality among patients in the emergency department: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to describe population-based incidence and emergency department-based prevalence and 1-year all-cause mortality of patients with new organ failure present at arrival.

DESIGN

This was a population-based cohort study of all citizens in four municipalities (population of 230 000 adults).

SETTING

Emergency department at Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

We included all adult patients who arrived from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Organ failure was defined as a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score≥2 within six possible organ systems: cerebral, circulatory, renal, respiratory, hepatic and coagulation.The primary outcome was prevalence of organ failure, and secondary outcomes were 0-7 days, 8-30 days and 31-365 days all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We identified in total 175 278 contacts, of which 70 399 contacts were further evaluated for organ failure. Fifty-two per cent of these were women, median age 62 (IQR 42-77) years. The incidence of new organ failure was 1342/100 000 person-years, corresponding to 5.2% of all emergency department contacts.The 0-7-day, 8-30-day and 31-365-day mortality was 11.0% (95% CI: 10.2% to 11.8%), 5.6% (95% CI: 5.1% to 6.2%) and 13.2% (95% CI: 12.3% to 14.1%), respectively, if the patient had one or more new organ failures at first contact in the observation period, compared with 1.4% (95% CI: 1.3% to 1.6%), 1.2% (95% CI: 1.1% to 1.3%) and 5.2% (95% CI: 5.0% to 5.4%) for patients without. Seven-day mortality ranged from hepatic failure, 6.5% (95% CI: 4.9% to 8.6%), to cerebral failure, 33.8% (95% CI: 31.0% to 36.8%), the 8-30-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 3.9% (95% CI: 2.8% to 5.3%), to hepatic failure, 8.6% (95% CI: 6.6% to 10.8%) and 31-365-day mortality ranged from cerebral failure, 9.3% (95% CI: 7.6% to 11.2%), to renal failure, 18.2% (95% CI: 15.5% to 21.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed an incidence of new organ failure at 1342/100 000 person-years and a prevalence of 5.2% of all emergency department contacts. One-year all-cause mortality was 29.8% among organ failure patients.

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment as a prognostic factor for infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was proposed to replace SIRS as a new screening tool for the identification of septic patients at high mortality. However, researches from infected patients outside of ICU especially in Emergency Department (ED) drew contradictory conclusions on the prognostic value of qSOFA. This systematic review evaluated qSOFA as a prognostic marker of infected patients outside of ICU. The primary outcome was hospital mortality or 28- or 30-day mortality. Data were pooled based on sensitivity and specificity. Twenty-four trials with 121,237 participants were included. qSOFA had a poor sensitivity (0.58 [95% CI 0.47-0.67], 0.54 [95% CI 0.43-0.65]) and moderate specificity (0.69 [95% CI 0.48-0.84], 0.77 [95% CI 0.66-0.86]) for prediction of mortality in patients outside of ICU and ED patients only. Studies that used in-hospital mortality showed a higher sensitivity (0.61 [95% CI 0.50-0.71] vs 0.32 [95% CI 0.15-0.49]) and lower specificity (0.70 [95% CI 0.59-0.82] vs 0.92 [95% CI 0.85-0.99]) than studies that used 28 or 30-day mortality. Studies with overall mortality < 10% showed higher specificity (0.89 [95% CI 0.82-0.95] vs 0.62 [95% CI 0.48-0.76]) than studies with overall mortality ≥ 10%. There is no difference in the accuracy of diagnosis of sepsis between positive qSOFA scores and SIRS criteria. qSOFA was poor sensitivity and moderate specificity in predicting mortality of infected patients outside of ICU especially in ED. Combining qSOFA and SIRS may be helpful in predicting mortality.

Adding lactate to SOFA and qSOFA scores predicts in-hospital mortality better in older patients in critical care

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine whether the addition of the lactate level to the SOFA score (SOFA-Laktat) and qSOFA Score (qSOFA-Laktat) improves the performance of the SOFA score and qSOFA score alone in predicting the hospital mortality of critically ill older patients.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A total of 799 patients over 65 years of age admitted to Emergency Department and hospitalized to intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital between May 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017, were included in this study. The parameters gender, age, initial complaint, duration of time between the start of their complaint and emergency admission, comorbidities, SOFA scores, qSOFA scores, arterial lactate (AL) values and reason for acute admission, which intensive care unit admitted to, length of stay and patients outcomes (discharge, exitus) were recorded. The primary outcome was to evaluate whether the addition of the evaluation of AL value increased the performance of the SOFA score and qSOFA score in predicting hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Data of 799 patients were analyzed, in which 52.8% (n = 422) were male and 47.3% (n = 377) were female. Most frequently hospitalized clinic was coronary ICU (34.7%, n = 277). Mean duration of hospitalization was 5.2 ± 8.7 days. Hospitalization was prolonged with increased lactate, SOFA and qSOFA levels. Cutoff value for lactate was 2.3 mmol/L in our ROC analyses. Predictive value of SOFA-Lactate_2.3 for mortality was significantly higher than SOFA score (p < 0.001). Also, predictive value of qSOFA-Lactate_2.3 for mortality was significantly higher than qSOFA score (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The lactate 2.3 mmol/L threshold-based SOFA-Lactate_2.3 and qSOFA-Lactate_2.3 scores perform better than SOFA and qSOFA alone in identifying hospital mortality risks of patients over 65 who are admitted to the ICU.

Accuracy of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis-3: a secondary analysis of a population-based cohort study

Background

We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for the diagnosis of sepsis-3, and to analyze the prognosis of infected patients in wards over-diagnosed with qSOFA but missed by sepsis-3, and those missed by qSOFA but in accordance with sepsis-3 criteria. We also intended to validate the performance of qSOFA as one predictor of outcome in patients with suspicion of infection.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of 1,716 adult patients with infection who were hospitalized from July 1^st, 2012 to June 30^th, 2014 in the Yuetan subdistrict of Beijing, China. Based on the sepsis-3 criteria and qSOFA score proposed by the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock, these patients were categorized into four groups: qSOFA(-)sepsis(-), qSOFA(+)sepsis(-), qSOFA(-)sepsis(+), and qSOFA(+)sepsis(+). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) of the qSOFA(+) group were compared with the sepsis(+) group for in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation.

Results

Among the 1,716 patients with infection, there were 935 patients (54.5%) with sepsis, and 640 patients (37.3%) with qSOFA ≥2. There were 610 patients in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(-) group, 171 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(-) group, 466 in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(+) group, and 469 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(+) group. In the logistic regression analysis, increasing age, bedridden status, and malignancy were all independent risk factors of hospital mortality. Sepsis and qSOFA ≥2 were also independent risk factors of hospital mortality, with an adjusted OR of 3.85 (95% CI: 2.70-5.50) and 13.92 (95% CI: 9.87-16.93) respectively. qSOFA had a sensitivity of 50.2% and a specificity of 78.1% for sepsis-3. The false-positive [qSOFA(+)sepsis(-)] group had 38 patients (22.2%) die during hospitalization, and an adjusted OR of 9.20 (95% CI: 4.86-17.38). In addition, the false-negative [qSOFA(-)sepsis(+)] group had a hospital mortality rate of 7.3% (34/466) and an adjusted OR of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.39-4.83). In comparison, patients meeting neither qSOFA nor sepsis criteria had the lowest hospital mortality [2.6% (16/610)], whereas patients with both qSOFA ≥2 and sepsis had the highest hospital mortality [56.5% (265/469)], with an adjusted OR of 42.02 (95% CI: 24.31-72.64). The discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA (AUROC, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.824-0.868) was greater compared with sepsis-3 criteria (AUROC, 0.834; 95% CI, 0.805-0.863; P<0.001).

Conclusions

In our analysis, the sensitivity(Se) of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis was lower, and qSOFA score ≥2 might identify a group of patients at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of being septic or not.

qSOFA is a Poor Predictor of Short-Term Mortality in All Patients: A Systematic Review of 410,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

To determine the validity of the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in the prediction of outcome (in-hospital and 1-month mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospital and ICU length of stay) in adult patients with or without suspected infections where qSOFA was calculated and reported; Methods: Cochrane Central of Controlled trials, EMBASE, BIOSIS, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Nursing Database, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database were the main databases searched. All studies published until 12 April 2018 were considered. All studies except case series, case reports, and conference abstracts were considered. Studies that included patients with neutropenic fever exclusively were excluded.

RESULTS

The median AUROC for in-hospital mortality (27 studies with 380,920 patients) was 0.68 (a range of 0.55 to 0.82). A meta-analysis of 377,623 subjects showed a polled AUROC of 0.68 (0.65 to 0.71); however, it also confirmed high heterogeneity among studies (I² = 98.8%, 95%CI 98.6 to 99.0). The median sensitivity and specificity for in-hospital mortality (24 studies with 118,051 patients) was 0.52 (range 0.16 to 0.98) and 0.81 (0.19 to 0.97), respectively. Median positive and negative predictive values were 0.2 (range 0.07 to 0.38) and 0.94 (0.85 to 0.99), respectively.

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Component Score Prediction of In-hospital Mortality From Sepsis

OBJECTIVES

Early organ dysfunction in sepsis confers a high risk of in-hospital mortality, but the relative contribution of specific types of organ failure to overall mortality is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive ability of individual types of organ failure to in-hospital mortality or prolonged intensive care.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adult emergency department patients with sepsis from October 1, 2013, to November 10, 2015. Multivariable regression was used to assess the odds ratios of individual organ failure types for the outcomes of in-hospital death (primary) and in-hospital death or ICU stay ≥ 3 days (secondary).

RESULTS

Of 2796 patients, 283 (10%) experienced in-hospital mortality, and 748 (27%) experienced in-hospital mortality or an ICU stay ≥ 3 days. The following components of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were most predictive of in-hospital mortality (descending order): coagulation (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-1.93), hepatic (1.58, 95% CI: 1.32-1.90), respiratory (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.47), neurologic (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.07-1.35), renal (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.27), and cardiovascular (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01-1.25). For mortality or ICU stay ≥3 days, the most predictive SOFA components were respiratory (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.79-2.16), neurologic (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.54-1.92), cardiovascular (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.23-1.54), coagulation (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.10-1.55), and renal (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.08-1.30) while hepatic SOFA (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.98-1.37) did not reach statistical significance (P = .092).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, SOFA score components demonstrated varying predictive abilities for mortality in sepsis. Elevated coagulation or hepatic SOFA scores were most predictive of in-hospital death, while an elevated respiratory SOFA was most predictive of death or ICU stay >3 days.

Correlation between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and severity scores in septic patients upon hospital admission. A series of 50 patients

Introduction. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as calculated from the white cell differential blood count is a marker that has been used as a prognostic index when assessing patients suffering from several clinical syndromes, including sepsis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between NLR and the commonly used severity scores of sepsis SOFA, APACHE II and SAPS II in a population of emergency admitted adult patients with sepsis in a tertiary center.

Methods. A prospective observational study was conducted in the Emergency Department of the University Hospital of Patras, Greece, based on data extracted from 50 patients consecutively enrolled, suffering from sepsis of multiple origin. The study period was from May 01, 2017 until June 30, 2017. The NLR was calculated from the total white blood cell (WBC) count values measured from a peripheral venous blood specimen drawn on admission. C-reactive protein (CRP) was also measured. The sepsis severity prognostic scores APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA were calculated for each patient.

Results. NLR was positively correlated with the sepsis severity prognostic scores on admission (SOFA, rs = 0.497, p < 0.001; APACHE II, rs = 0.411, p = 0.003; SAPS II, rs = 0.445, p = 0.001). Total WBC was also significantly correlated with the scores (SOFA, rs = 0.342, p = 0.015; APACHE II, rs = 0.384, p = 0.006; SAPS II, rs = 0.287, p = 0.043). Serum CRP did not show any significant correlation either to NLR or to the sepsis severity scores on admission.

Conclusions. NLR is an easily calculated, cost-efficient index that could be used as a tool for clinicians when assessing sepsis patients in the Emergency Department. Although NLR measurement is simple, and rapidly available, future and larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm its definite value as a prognostic index in sepsis patients.

Accuracy of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with suspected infection: a meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To identify sensitivity, specificity and predictive accuracy of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to predict in-hospital mortality in hospitalized patients with suspected infection.

METHODS

This meta-analysis followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group consensus statement for conducting and reporting the results of systematic review. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for the observational studies which reported predictive utility of qSOFA score for predicting mortality in patients with suspected or proven infection with the following search words: 'qSOFA', 'q-SOFA', 'quick-SOFA', 'Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment', 'quick SOFA'. Sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with 95% confidence interval (CI) of qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting in-hospital mortality was collected for each study and a 2 × 2 table was created for each study.

RESULTS

Data of 406 802 patients from 45 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) of qSOFA ≥2 for predicting mortality in patients who were not in an intensive care unit (ICU) was 0.48 (0.41-0.55) and 0.83 (0.78-0.87), respectively. Pooled sensitivity (95% CI) of qSOFA ≥2 for predicting mortality in patients (both ICU and non-ICU settings) with suspected infection was 0.56 (0.47-0.65) and pooled specificity (95% CI) was 0.78 (0.71-0.83).

CONCLUSION

qSOFA has been found to be a poorly sensitive predictive marker for in-hospital mortality in hospitalized patients with suspected infection. It is reasonable to recommend developing another scoring system with higher sensitivity to identify high-risk patients with infection.