Sepsis in Brazilian emergency departments: a prospective multicenter observational study

We aimed to assess the prevalence, patient allocation adequacy, and mortality of adults with sepsis in Brazilian emergency departments (ED) in a point-prevalence 3-day investigation of patients with sepsis who presented to the ED and those who remained there due to inadequate allocation. Allocation was considered adequate if the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU), ward, or remained in the ED without ICU admission requests. Prevalence was estimated using the total ED visit number. Prognostic factors were assessed with logistic regression. Of 33,902 ED visits in 74 institutions, 183 were acute admissions (prevalence: 5.4 sepsis per 1000 visits [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.2)], and 148 were already in the ED; totaling 331 patients. Hospital mortality was 32% (103/322, 95% CI 23.0-51.0). Age (odds ratio (OR) 1.22 [95% CI 1.10-1.37]), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 1.41 [95% CI 1.28-1.57]), healthcare-associated infections (OR 2.59 [95% CI 1.24-5.50]) and low-resource institution admission (OR 2.65 [95% CI 1.07-6.90]) were associated with higher mortality. Accredited institutions (OR 0.42 [95% CI 0.21-0.86]) had lower mortality rates. Allocation within 24 h was adequate in only 52.8% of patients (public hospitals: 42.4% (81/190) vs. private institutions: 67.4% (89/132, p < 0.001) with 39.2% (74/189) of public hospital patients remaining in the ED until discharge, of whom 55.4% (41/74) died. Sepsis exerts high burden and mortality in Brazilian EDs with frequent inadequate allocation. Modifiable factors, such as resources and quality of care, are associated with reduced mortality.

Predictive Accuracy of the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment Score in Brazil. A Prospective Multicenter Study

Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.

Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.

Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.

Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1–15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5–9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1–87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0–93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2–71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9–18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5–43.3).

Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.

Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).

Clinical Utility of Procalcitonin in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of procalcitonin in the diagnosis and management of pneumonia remains controversial.

METHODS

We assessed the clinical utility of procalcitonin in 2 prospective studies: first, a multicenter diagnostic study in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnea to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin with that of interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the diagnosis of pneumonia; second, a randomized management study of procalcitonin guidance in patients with acute heart failure and suspected pneumonia. Diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia as centrally adjudicated by 2 independent experts was quantified with the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 690 patients in the diagnostic study, 178 (25.8%) had an adjudicated final diagnosis of pneumonia. Procalcitonin, interleukin 6, and CRP were significantly higher in patients with pneumonia than in those without. When compared to procalcitonin (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78), interleukin 6 (AUC = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.83) and CRP (AUC = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.85) had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (P = 0.010 and P < 0.001, respectively). The management study was stopped early owing to the unexpectedly low AUC of procalcitonin in the diagnostic study. Among 45 randomized patients, the number of days on antibiotic therapy and the length of hospital stay were similar (both P = 0.39) in patients randomized to the procalcitonin-guided group (n = 25) and usual-care group (n = 20).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients presenting with dyspnea, diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin for pneumonia is only moderate and lower than that of interleukin 6 and CRP. The clinical utility of procalcitonin was lower than expected.

SUMMARY

Pneumonia has diverse and often unspecific symptoms. As the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis of pneumonia remains controversial, it is often difficult to distinguish pneumonia from other illnesses causing shortness of breath. The current study prospectively enrolled unselected patients presenting with acute dyspnea and directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, interleukin 6, and CRP for the diagnosis of pneumonia. In this setting, diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin for pneumonia was lower as compared to interleukin 6 and CRP. The clinical utility of procalcitonin was lower than expected.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01831115.