Correction: Comparative prognostic accuracy of sepsis scores for hospital mortality in adults with suspected infection in non-ICU and ICU at an academic public hospital

National Early Warning Score and New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality or Transfer to the Intensive Care Unit in Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Bacterial Infections

Purpose

There are conflicting data regarding the role of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with infectious diseases. New-onset atrial fibrillation (NO-AF) has been suggested as a sepsis-defining sign of organ dysfunction. This study aimed to examine the prognostic accuracy of NEWS2 and whether NO-AF can provide prognostic information in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected bacterial infections.

Patients and Methods

Secondary analyses of data from a prospective observational cohort study of adults admitted in a 6-month period with suspected bacterial infections. We used the composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality or transfer to the intensive care unit as the primary outcome. The prognostic accuracy of NEWS2 and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating curves (AAUROC) were used to describe the performance of the scores. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between NO-AF and the composite endpoint.

Results

A total of 2055 patients were included in this study. The composite endpoint was achieved in 198 (9.6%) patients. NO-AF was observed in 80 (3.9%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity for NEWS2 ≥5 were 70.2% (63.3-76.5) and 60.2% (57.9-62.4), respectively, and those for qSOFA ≥2 were 26.3% (20.3-33.0) and 91.0% (89.6-92.3), respectively. AAUROC for NEWS2 and qSOFA were 0.68 (0.65-0.73) and 0.63 (0.59-0.68), respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for achieving the composite endpoint in 48 patients with NO-AF who fulfilled the NEWS2 ≥5 criteria was 2.71 (1.35-5.44).

Conclusion

NEWS2 had higher sensitivity but lower specificity and better, albeit poor, discriminative ability to predict the composite endpoint compared to qSOFA. NO-AF can provide important prognostic information.

Relationship Between Etiology of Cirrhosis and Survival Among Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVE

To determine short-term outcomes of patients with alcohol-associated cirrhosis (ALC) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with other etiologies of liver disease. In addition, we investigate whether quick sequential organ failure assessment accurately predicts presence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with various etiologies of cirrhosis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 1174 consecutive patients with cirrhosis admitted to the ICU between January of 2006 and December of 2015 was analyzed. Outcomes of interest included survival rates within the ICU, post-ICU in-hospital, or at 30 days post-ICU discharge.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-eight patients were found to have ALC with 596 in the non-ALC group. There was no significant difference in ICU mortality rates in ALC versus non-ALC cohorts (10.2% vs 11.7%, P=.40). However, patients with ALC had significantly higher post-ICU in-hospital death (10.0% vs 6.5%, P=.04) as well as higher mortality at 30-day post-ICU discharge (18.7% vs 11.2%, P<.001). Sustained alcohol abstinence did not offer survival advantage over nonabstinence. The predictive power for quick sequential organ failure assessment for sepsis and in-hospital mortality for patients with cirrhosis was limited.

CONCLUSION

Critically ill patients with ALC have decreased survival after ICU discharge compared with patients with other etiologies of cirrhosis, independent of alcohol abstinence.

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.

Randomised controlled trials for COVID-19: evaluation of optimal randomisation methodologies-need for data validation of the completed trials and to improve ongoing and future randomised trial designs

During the emerging COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, initially there were no proven treatment options. With the release of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results, we are beginning to see possible treatment options for COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial showed an absolute risk reduction in mortality by 2.8% with dexamethasone, and the ACTT-1 trial showed that treatment with remdesivir reduced the time to recovery by 4 days. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir did not show any mortality benefit in either the RECOVERY or World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trials. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Brazilian HCQ trials did not show any benefit for HCQ based on the seven-point ordinal scale outcomes. The randomisation methodologies utilised in these controlled trials and the quality of published data were reviewed to examine their adaptability to treat patients. We found that the randomisation methodologies of these trials were suboptimal for matching the studied groups based on disease severity among critically-ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients with high mortality rates. The published literature is very limited regarding the disease severity metrics among the compared groups and failed to show that the data are without fatal sampling errors and sampling biases. We also found that there is a definite need for the validation of data in these trials along with additional important disease severity metrics to ensure that the trials' conclusions are accurate. We also propose proper randomisation methodologies for the design of RCTs for COVID-19 as well as guidance for the publication of COVID-19 trial results.