Low sensitivity of qSOFA, SIRS criteria and sepsis definition to identify infected patients at risk of complication in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department triage

Rapid Systematic Review: The Appropriate Use of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The concept of sepsis has recently been redefined by an International Task Force. The task force recommended the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score instead of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk of mortality from sepsis outside of the intensive care unit, including in emergency departments (EDs). However, the primary outcome for qSOFA is prediction of risk for mortality, which is not the principal outcome measure considered in the ED. From the ED perspective, the priorities are the identification (diagnosis) of the septic patient and then the initiation of time-sensitive, life-saving interventions.

METHOD

We performed a structured review of PubMed from January 2012 to December 2018, limited to reports involving human subjects and written in English language and containing relevant keywords. The highest-quality studies were then reviewed in a structured format. We utilized these studies to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of SIRS and qSOFA for diagnosis of sepsis.

RESULTS

Thirteen unique articles were identified for further review, and the 11 highest-grade articles (C and D) were determined to be appropriate for inclusion in this review, and the two low-grade articles were excluded (E).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on multiple retrospective and few prospective studies, it appears that qSOFA performs poorly in comparison with SIRS as a diagnostic tool for ED patients who may have sepsis or septic shock. However, qSOFA does have a strong prognostic accuracy for mortality in those ED patients already diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock.

Comparison of qSOFA score, SOFA score, and SIRS criteria for the prediction of infection and mortality among surgical intermediate and intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

It is crucial to rapidly identify sepsis so that adequate treatment may be initiated. Accordingly, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores are used to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients, respectively. As demand for ICU beds rises, the intermediate care unit (IMCU) carries greater importance as a bridge between the ICU and the regular ward. This study aimed to examine the ability of SOFA and qSOFA scores to predict suspected infection and mortality in IMCU patients.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis included 13,780 surgical patients treated at the IMCU, ICU, or both between January 01, 2012, and September 30, 2018. Patients were screened for suspected infection (i.e., the commencement of broad-spectrum antibiotics) and then evaluated for the SOFA score, qSOFA score, and the 1992 defined systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.

RESULTS

Suspected infection was detected in 1306 (18.3%) of IMCU, 1365 (35.5%) of ICU, and 1734 (62.0%) of IMCU/ICU encounters. Overall, 458 (3.3%) patients died (IMCU 45 [0.6%]; ICU 250 [6.5%]; IMCU/ICU 163 [5.8%]). All investigated scores failed to predict suspected infection independently of the analyzed subgroup. Regarding mortality prediction, the qSOFA score performed sufficiently within the IMCU cohort (AUCROC SIRS 0.72 [0.71-0.72]; SOFA 0.52 [0.51-0.53]; qSOFA 0.82 [0.79-0.84]), while the SOFA score was predictive in patients of the IMCU/ICU cohort (AUCROC SIRS 0.54 [0.53-0.54]; SOFA 0.73 [0.70-0.77]; qSOFA 0.59 [0.58-0.59]).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the assessed scores was sufficiently able to predict suspected infection in surgical ICU or IMCU patients. While the qSOFA score is appropriate for mortality prediction in IMCU patients, SOFA score prediction quality is increased in critically ill patients.

NEWS and qSIRS superior to qSOFA in the prediction of 30-day mortality in emergency department patients in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

We aim to compare the prognostic value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the previous Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and along with their combinations in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This single-centre prospective study recruited a convenience sample of unselected ED patients triaged as category 2 (Emergency) and 3 (Urgent). Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine the Area Under the Curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the various scores.

RESULTS

Of 1253 patients recruited, overall 30-day mortality was 5.7%. The prognostic value for prediction of 30-day mortality, with AUCs for qSOFA ≥2, SIRS ≥2, NEWS ≥5, qSIRS (qSOFA + SIRS) ≥2 and NSIRS (NEWS + SIRS) ≥5 of 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.64 (95%CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.63), respectively. Using pairwise comparisons of ROC curves, NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unselected emergency and urgent ED patients, the prognostic value for NEWS and qSIRS were greater than qSOFA, Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients. Key messages NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality in ED patients. Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients.

Predicting in-hospital mortality for sepsis: a comparison between qSOFA and modified qSOFA in a 2-year single-centre retrospective analysis

Sepsis is a life-threating organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. This study proposed a new tool, i.e. modified qSOFA, for the early prognostic assessment of septic patients. All cases of sepsis/septic shock consecutively observed in 2 years (January 2017–December 2018), at St. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy, were included. Each patient was evaluated with qSOFA and a modified qSOFA (MqSOFA), i.e. adding a SpO2/FiO2 ratio to qSOFA. Logistic regression and survival analyses were applied to compare the two scores. A total number of 1137 consecutive cases of sepsis and septic shock were considered. Among them 136 were excluded for incomplete report of vital parameters. A total number of 668 patients (66.7%) were discharged, whereas 333 (33.3%) died because of sepsis-related complications. Data analysis showed that MqSOFA (AUC 0.805, 95% C.I. 0.776–0.833) had a greater ability to detect in-hospital mortality than qSOFA (AUC 0.712, 95% C.I. 0.678–0.746) (p < 0.001). Eighty-five patients (8.5%) were reclassified as high-risk (qSOFA< 2 and MqSOFA≥ 2) resulting in an improvement of sensitivity with a minor reduction in specificity. A significant difference of in-hospital mortality was observed between low-risk and reclassified high-risk (p < 0.001) and low-risk vs. high-risk groups (p < 0.001). We demonstrated that MqSOFA provided a better predictive score than qSOFA regarding patient’s outcome. Since sepsis is an underhanded and time-dependent disease, physicians may rely upon the herein proposed simple score, i.e. MqSOFA, to establish patients’ severity and outcome.

National Early Warning Score (NEWS) as Prognostic Triage Tool for Septic Patients

Purpose

We assessed the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) in emergency triage for predicting sepsis-related outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all cases enrolled in the sepsis management protocol for a one-year duration. The protocol utilized the NEWS as a screening tool for sepsis in the triage area. Primary outcomes of interest were hyperlactatemia, admission to ICU and intrahospital mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for a given NEWS.

Results

A total of 444 patients were reviewed from July 2018 to June 2019, with a mean age of 58.7 years. A NEWS ≥5 was more than 88% sensitive in predicting hyperlactatemia, ICU admission, and/or mortality. Specificity, on the other hand, was as low as 12%. The AUC for the NEWS was 0.667 for predicting hyperlactatemia and 0.602 for predicting ICU admission or mortality.

Conclusion

The NEWS was a sensitive screening tool for predicting sepsis-related outcomes. However, it was not specific, and further studies are recommended to assess the integration of other factors to improve specificity.

Validity of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in Assessing Mortality Rate in the Intensive Care Unit With or Without Sepsis

Introduction

Sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-induced hypotension not improved by adequate fluid resuscitation) are among the most common reasons for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and display high mortality rates. Different scoring systems are used to diagnose and predict the mortality of patients having sepsis. This study aims to validate the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in determining the mortality of both septic and non-septic patients.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in May 2018 in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) of a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Past 200 patient records, from January 2018 to April 2018, were examined, and 20 records were discarded due to insufficient data. Sufficient observational data were collected, which was used to assess the validity of the SOFA and qSOFA in determining the mortality rate of sepsis. A comparison of the two modalities was made.

Results

Out of the 200 patients, 180 were enrolled. Data from their entire ICU stay were used to calculate their initial, highest, and mean SOFA and qSOFA. Mean SOFA score up to nine correlated with a mortality rate of up to <79%, while scores 10 and above predicted a 100% mortality rate. A mean qSOFA score of three predicted a 67% mortality rate. Univariate logistic analysis performed with odds ratio showed that the mean qSOFA score was in comparison more closely able to predict mortality, followed by mean SOFA score (p values < 0.01).

Conclusions

This study concluded that both SOFA and qSOFA scores are good predictors of mortality. However, qSOFA is more closely accurate in predicting mortality than SOFA. But further analysis with larger sample size for a longer duration as well as the application of these scores in the emergency departments and general wards can prove the precision of this study.

Prognostic performance of qSOFA in oncology patients admitted to the emergency department with suspected infection

AIM

We aimed to test the performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA) in predicting the outcomes of oncology patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with suspected infection.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of all oncology patients presenting to the ED of a tertiary hospital with suspected infection from 1 December 2014 to 1 June 2017. Patients were identified by cross-linkage of ED and Oncology electronic health records. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and/or ICU stay ≥ 3 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1655 patients were included in this study--1267 (76.6%) with solid tumor and 388 (23.4%) with hematological malignancies. At presentation, 495 patients had chemotherapy, and 140 had radiotherapy within the preceding 6 months. Four hundred patients received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in the previous 4 weeks. Overall, 371 (22.4%) patients had qSOFA ≥ 2. Such patients had a higher likelihood of respiratory infections compared to patients with a qSOFA < 2 (43.9% vs 29%) and were more likely to be admitted to ICU or require mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality or in-hospital mortality and/or ICU stay ≥ 3 days were 17.3% and 21%, for qSOFA ≥ 2 patients versus 4.7% and 6.9% for qSOFA < 2 patients (P < .001). qSOFA ≥ 2 had a negative predictive value of 95% for in-hospital mortality and 93% for in-hospital mortality or ICU stay ≥ 3 days.

CONCLUSION

Among oncology patients presenting to the ED with suspected infection, a qSOFA ≥ 2 is associated with a threefold risk of hospital mortality/prolonged ICU stay. Its absence helps identify low-risk patients.

Developing Adult Sepsis Protocol to Reduce the Time to Initial Antibiotic Dose and Improve Outcomes among Patients with Cancer in Emergency Department

Objective:

Sepsis is a common cause of noncancer-related deaths among oncology patients. Delay in the initiation of efficient antimicrobial therapy will decrease the survival rate. This study aims to develop a sepsis protocol for adult oncology patients to decrease the time needed to receive the initial dose of antibiotic in an emergency department (ED), improve the early recognition of sepsis, and decrease the in-hospital mortality rate due to sepsis.

Methods:

A quasi-experimental research design was used. A total of 168 participants were assigned into pre- and post-intervention groups (n = 85) and (n = 83), respectively. The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment screening tool was used to screen patients in the triage room.

Results:

There was a significant difference in the proportions of receiving the initial antibiotic dose whether ≤1 h or >1 h between pre- and post-intervention groups. The results also showed that 89.4% of the postintervention group received their initial antibiotic dose in <1 h compared with 10.8% of the preintervention group. The median time needed for administering the initial antibiotic dose was decreased from 95 min to 45 min. The results of the changes in mortality rates are promising as it decreased 11.7% after applying the adult sepsis protocol.

Conclusions:

Applying an adult sepsis protocol in the ED significantly decreased the time needed to initiate antibiotic treatment. It is recommended to utilize a multidisciplinary and systematic approach in screening and treating sepsis.

The role of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) and modified early warning score (MEWS) in the pre-hospitalization prediction of sepsis prognosis

OBJECTIVE

Many biomarkers and scoring systems to make clinical predictions about the prognosis of sepsis have been investigated. In this study, we aimed to assess the use of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) and modified early warning score (MEWS) scoring systems in emergency health care services for sepsis to predict intensive care hospitalization and 28-day mortality.

METHOD

Patients who arrived by ambulance at the Emergency Department (ED) of Dışkapı YıldırımBeyazıt Training and Research Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019, and who were diagnosed with sepsis and admitted to the hospital were included in the study. Demographic data and physiological parameters from 112 ambulance case delivery forms were recorded.QSOFA and MEWS scores were calculated from vital parameters.

RESULTS

Of the 266 patients diagnosed with sepsis, 50% (n = 133) were female, and the mean age was 74.8 ± 13. The difference between the rate of intensive care (ICU) hospitalization and mortality for patients with a high MEWS and qSOFA score and patients whose MEWS and qSOFA score were lower was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Thus, the criteria for MEWS and qSOFA could determine ICU hospitalization and early mortality. Those with a high MEWS value had a mortality rate approximately 1.24 times higher than those with a low MEWS value (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.110-1.385), while those with a high qSOFA score had a mortality rate approximately 2.0 times higher than those with a low qSOFA score (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.446-2.693). Those with a high MEWS were 1.34 times more likely than hose with a lower MEWS to require ICU hospitalization (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.1773-1.5131), while patients with a high qSOFA score were 3.21 times more likely than those with a lower qSOFA score to require ICU care (p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.2289-4.6093).

CONCLUSION

Although qSOFA and MEWS are clinical scores used to identify septic patients outside the critical care unit, we believe that patients already diagnosed with sepsis can be assessed with qSOFA and MEWS prior to hospitalization to predict intensive care hospitalization and mortality. qSOFA was found be more valuable than MEWS in determining the prognosis of pre-hospitalization sepsis.

Emergency Severity Index as a predictor of in-hospital mortality in suspected sepsis patients in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) for predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in suspected sepsis patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary care hospital, Thailand. Suspected sepsis was defined by a combination of (1) hemoculture collection and (2) the initiation of intravenous antibiotics therapy during the emergency department (ED) visit. The accuracy of each scoring system for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 8177 patients (median age: 62 years, 52.3% men) were enrolled in the study, 509 (6.2%) of whom died and 1810 (22.1%) of whom were admitted to the ICU. The ESI and NEWS had comparable accuracy for predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.73 and AUC of 0.73, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.75) and ICU admission (AUC of 0.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.76 and AUC of 0.74, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.75). The ESI level 1-2 had the highest sensitivity for predicting in-hospital mortality (96.7%), and qSOFA ≥2 had the highest specificity (86.6%).

CONCLUSION

The ESI was accurate and had the highest sensitivity for predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU admission in suspected sepsis patients in the ED. This confirms that the ESI is useful in both ED triage and predicting adverse outcomes in these patients.

Screening strategies to identify sepsis in the prehospital setting: a validation study

BACKGROUND

In the prehospital setting, differentiating patients who have sepsis from those who have infection but no organ dysfunction is important to initiate sepsis treatments appropriately. We aimed to identify which published screening strategies for paramedics to use in identifying patients with sepsis provide the most certainty for prehospital diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified published strategies for screening by paramedics through a literature search. We then conducted a validation study in Alberta, Canada, from April 2015 to March 2016. For adult patients (≥ 18 yr) who were transferred by ambulance, we linked records to an administrative database and then restricted the search to patients with infection diagnosed in the emergency department. For each patient, the classification from each strategy was determined and compared with the diagnosis recorded in the emergency department. For all strategies that generated numeric scores, we constructed diagnostic prediction models to estimate the probability of sepsis being diagnosed in the emergency department.

RESULTS

We identified 21 unique prehospital screening strategies, 14 of which had numeric scores. We linked a total of 131 745 eligible patients to hospital databases. No single strategy had both high sensitivity (overall range 0.02-0.85) and high specificity (overall range 0.38-0.99) for classifying sepsis. However, the Critical Illness Prediction (CIP) score, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score predicted a low to high probability of a sepsis diagnosis at different scores. The qSOFA identified patients with a 7% (lowest score) to 87% (highest score) probability of sepsis diagnosis.

INTERPRETATION

The CIP, NEWS and qSOFA scores are tools with good predictive ability for sepsis diagnosis in the prehospital setting. The qSOFA score is simple to calculate and may be useful to paramedics in screening patients with possible sepsis.

Prognostic performance of endothelial biomarkers to early predict clinical deterioration of patients with suspected bacterial infection and sepsis admitted to the emergency department

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the ability of endothelial biomarkers to early predict clinical deterioration of patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with a suspected sepsis. This was a prospective, multicentre, international study conducted in EDs. Adult patients with suspected acute bacterial infection and sepsis were enrolled but only those with confirmed infection were analysed. The kinetics of biomarkers and organ dysfunction were collected at T0, T6 and T24 hours after ED admission to assess prognostic performances of sVEGFR2, suPAR and procalcitonin (PCT). The primary outcome was the deterioration within 72 h and was defined as a composite of relevant outcomes such as death, intensive care unit admission and/or SOFA score increase validated by an independent adjudication committee.

RESULTS

After adjudication of 602 patients, 462 were analysed including 124 who deteriorated (27%). On admission, those who deteriorated were significantly older (73 [60-82] vs 63 [45-78] y-o, p < 0.001) and presented significantly higher SOFA scores (2.15 ± 1.61 vs 1.56 ± 1.40, p = 0.003). At T0, sVEGFR2 (5794 [5026-6788] vs 6681 [5516-8059], p < 0.0001), suPAR (6.04 [4.42-8.85] vs 4.68 [3.50-6.43], p < 0.0001) and PCT (7.8 ± 25.0 vs 5.4 ± 17.9 ng/mL, p = 0.001) were associated with clinical deterioration. In multivariate analysis, low sVEGFR2 expression and high suPAR and PCT levels were significantly associated with early deterioration, independently of confounding parameters (sVEGFR2, OR = 1.53 [1.07-2.23], p < 0.001; suPAR, OR = 1.57 [1.21-2.07], p = 0.003; PCT, OR = 1.10 [1.04-1.17], p = 0.0019). Combination of sVEGFR2 and suPAR had the best prognostic performance (AUC = 0.7 [0.65-0.75]) compared to clinical or biological variables.

CONCLUSIONS

sVEGFR2, either alone or combined with suPAR, seems of interest to predict deterioration of patients with suspected bacterial acute infection upon ED admission and could help front-line physicians in the triage process.

How well are sepsis and a sense of urgency documented throughout the acute care chain in the Netherlands? A prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the documentation of sepsis and a sense of urgency throughout the acute care chain.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Emergency department (ED) in a large district hospital in Heerlen, The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included patients ≥18 years with suspected sepsis who visited the ED during out-of-hours between September 2017 and January 2018 (n=339) and had been referred by a general practitioner and/or transported by ambulance. We defined suspected sepsis as suspected or proven infection and the presence of ≥2 quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment and/or ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We analysed how often sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented in the prehospital and ED medical records. A sense of urgency was considered documented when a medical record suggested the need of immediate assessment by a physician in the ED. We described documentation patterns throughout the acute care chain and investigated whether documentation of sepsis or a sense of urgency is associated with adverse outcomes (intensive care admission/30-day all-cause mortality).

RESULTS

Sepsis was documented in 16.8% of medical records and a sense of urgency in 22.4%. In 4.1% and 7.7%, respectively, sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented by all involved professionals. In patients with an adverse outcome, sepsis was documented more often in the ED than in patients without an adverse outcome (47.9% vs 13.7%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that in prehospital and ED medical records, sepsis and a sense of urgency are documented in one out of five patients. In only 1 out of 20 patients sepsis or a sense of urgency is documented by all involved professionals. It is possible that poor documentation causes harm, due to delayed diagnosis or treatment. Hence, it could be important to raise awareness among professionals regarding the importance of their documentation.

Arterial blood gas as a prognostic indicator in patients with sepsis

Abnormal arterial blood gas (ABG) among patients with sepsis is an important prognostic indicator. All-cause mortality was the highest among patients with respiratory acidosis (4/9 = 44.4%), followed by those having metabolic acidosis (3/8 = 37.5%). Median length of hospital and intensive care unit stay was 15.75 days and 6.25 days for those with abnormal ABG and 11 and 3.5 days among those with normal ABG. Median health-care expenditure at the time of discharge or death of the patient was the highest in patients with respiratory acidosis ($14,473) and least in patients with normal ABG ($3,384) (average expenditure among patients with abnormal ABG was [$10,059]).

Prospective evaluation of the quickSOFA score as a screening for sepsis in the emergency department

In 2016, the new bedside tool quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was presented to identify patients at high risk of developing sepsis or adverse outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of the qSOFA scoring system as a screening in patients presenting at an emergency department (ED) of any cause. Therefore, we compared qSOFA with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and two modifications of qSOFA score. This is a prospective single-center study including patients presenting to the ED of any non-traumatic cause. Primary outcome was development of sepsis within 48 h, secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and ICU stay for > 3 days. Data were collected within one hour after arrival to indicate an impression of initial medical contact. Among 1,668 patients, 105 sepsis cases were identified. 8.4% presented with qSOFA ≥ 2, 27.2% with SIRS ≥ 2 within one hour. Sensitivity of qSOFA in predicting sepsis was lower compared to the SIRS criteria. qSOFA showed better prognostic accuracy for 30-day mortality compared to SIRS (p < 0.05), but not for prolonged ICU stay (p = 0.56). Modification of qSOFA in replacing GCS by other scoring systems recording altered mental status did not improve its sensitivity. The qSOFA score has poor sensitivity to identify patients at risk of developing sepsis and can therefore not be considered as an adequate screening for sepsis in patients presenting to the ED. Furthermore, a positive qSOFA at arrival at the ED showed no sufficient reliability in detecting patients with adverse clinical course.

Prognostic value of prehospital quick sequential organ failure assessment score among patients with suspected infection

OBJECTIVE

After the third international consensus on sepsis released its new definitions, the prognostic value of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score has been confirmed in the emergency department. However, its validity in the prehospital setting remains unknown. The objective of the study was to assess its accuracy for prehospital patients cared by emergency physician-staffed ambulances (services mobiles d'urgence et de réanimation SMUR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational multicenter cohort study (N = 6). All consecutive patients with prehospital clinical suspicion of infection by the emergency physician of the SMUR emergency medical service were included. Components of qSOFA were collected, and the patients were followed until hospital discharge. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality, censored at 28 days. Secondary end points included ICU admission longer than 72 h and a composite of 'death or ICU stay more than 72 h'.

RESULTS

We screened 342 patients and included 332 in the analysis. Their mean age was 73 years, 159 (48%) were women, and the most common site of infection was respiratory (73% of cases). qSOFA was at least 2 in 133 (40%) patients. The overall in-hospital mortality was 27%: 41% in patients with qSOFA of at least 2 versus 18% for qSOFA less than 2 (absolute difference 23%; 95% confidence interval: 13-33%, P < 0.001). The overall discrimination for qSOFA was poor, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.74).

CONCLUSION

In this large multicenter study, prehospital qSOFA presents a strong association with mortality in infected patient, though with poor prognostic performances in our severely ill sample.

Emergency Medical Services Care and Sepsis Trajectories

Objective: Many sepsis patients receive initial care from prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS). While earlier sepsis care improves outcomes, the characteristics, care and outcomes of those treated by EMS versus those arriving directly to an emergency department (ED) are currently not detailed. We sought to determine differences in hospital presentation, course and outcomes between EMS and non-EMS patients enrolled in the Protocolized Care of Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) trial. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of ProCESS, which studied ED patients with septic shock. EMS care was the primary exposure. We determined differences in demographics, clinical features, interventions and hospital course between EMS and non-EMS patients. Using mixed models, we determined the association between EMS care and 60-day mortality. Results: Among 1,341 patients, 826 (61.6%) received initial EMS care. EMS patients were older, more likely to be black (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.14-1.95) or nursing home residents (5.57, 3.61-8.60), and more likely to have chronic respiratory disease (1.36, 1.04-1.78), cerebral vascular disease (1.56; 1.04-2.33), peripheral vascular disease (2.02; 1.29-3.16), and dementia (3.53; 2.04-6.10). EMS patients were more likely to present with coma (4.48; 2.53-7.96) or elevated lactate (1.30; 1.04-1.63), and to receive mechanical ventilation in the ED (7.16; 4.34-11.79). There were no differences in infection source or total intravenous fluids. Initial differences in vasopressor use (1.66; 1.22-2.26) resolved at 6 hours (1.18; 0.94-1.47). Initial differences in APACHE II (EMS 21.8 vs. non-EMS 19.0) narrowed by 48 hours (17.9 vs. 16.3, [EMS X time] interaction p = 0.003). Although EMS patients exhibited higher 60-day mortality, after adjustment for confounders, this association was not significant (1.09, 95% CI: 0.78-1.55). Conclusions: While EMS sepsis patients presented with worse chronic, nonmodifiable characteristics and higher acuity than non-EMS patients, differences in acuity narrowed after initial hospital care. Despite having higher illness burden, EMS patients did not have worse adjusted short-term mortality.

A boosting inspired personalized threshold method for sepsis screening

Sepsis is one of the biggest risks to patient safety, with a natural mortality rate between 25% and 50%. It is difficult to diagnose, and no validated standard for diagnosis currently exists. A commonly used scoring criteria is the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA). It demonstrates very low specificity in ICU populations, however. We develop a method to personalize thresholds in qSOFA that incorporates easily to measure patient baseline characteristics. We compare the personalized threshold method to qSOFA, five previously published methods that obtain an optimal constant threshold for a single biomarker, and to the machine learning algorithms based on logistic regression and AdaBoosting using patient data in the MIMIC-III database. The personalized threshold method achieves higher accuracy than qSOFA and the five published methods and has comparable performance to machine learning methods. Personalized thresholds, however, are much easier to adopt in real-life monitoring than machine learning methods as they are computed once for a patient and used in the same way as qSOFA, whereas the machine learning methods are hard to implement and interpret.

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment.

METHODS

The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached.

CONCLUSIONS

The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

A prospective validation of Sepsis-3 guidelines in acute hepatobiliary sepsis: qSOFA lacks sensitivity and SIRS criteria lacks specificity (Cohort Study)

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction in 2016, the Sepsis-3 guidelines, with emphasis on the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, have generated much debate and controversy. It is recognised that the new definitions require validation in specific clinical settings and have yet to be universally adopted. We aim to validate new Sepsis-3 guidelines in acute hepatobiliary infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute hepatobiliary infection from the emergency department from July 2016 to June 2017 was studied. The Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, SOFA and qSOFA scores were calculated and predictive performance evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for predictive ability of these indices for critical care unit admission and morbidity.

RESULTS

124 patients with a median age of 64.5 years and majority males (n = 75, 60.5%) were admitted with acute hepatobiliary infection during the study period. Acute cholecystitis was the most common admission diagnosis (n = 83, 66.9%) and most patients were managed in general ward (n = 91, 73.3%) with median length of stay of 6 days (range 1-40). On multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (p = 0.003) predicted high dependency unit (HDU) admission, while age (p = 0.001), positive blood culture (p = 0.012), positive fluid culture (p = 0.015) and SOFA score (p = 0.002) predicted length of hospital stay. The sensitivity of SIRS in predicting HDU admission (60% vs. 4%), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (62.5% vs. 0%) and morbidity (66.7% vs. 0%) was higher than qSOFA score. The specificity of qSOFA in predicting HDU admission (100% vs. 49.5%), ICU admission (99.1% vs. 53.3%) and morbidity (99.2% vs. 47.9%) was higher than SIRS criteria.

CONCLUSION

The SIRS criteria has high sensitivity and the qSOFA score has high specificity in predicting outcomes of patients with acute hepatobiliary infection.

Screening for sepsis: SIRS or qSOFA? A literature review

In 2016, definitions of sepsis and septic shock were updated to focus on organ dysfunction rather than systemic inflammatory response as the identifying trait. This article aims to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in detecting sepsis in emergency department (ED) patients. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using four databases. A total of 307 articles was identified. After the selection process, 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Five themes emerged from the meta-analysis: SIRS; qSOFA; timeliness and simplicity; sensitivity versus specificity; and adding lacate. SIRS offered users greater sensitivity when assessing for sepsis. However, qSOFA is a simple bedside tool with greater specificity, which does not require any blood test results. The author created a new qSOFA screening tool, which incorporated the use of point-of-care serum lactate measurement. He found that qSOFA outperforms SIRS as an ED sepsis screening tool with its strengths of efficacy, efficiency and ease. It was also found to differentiate better between uncomplicated infection and sepsis, which can commonly cause trigger fatigue in EDs.

A Data-Driven Approach to Predicting Septic Shock in the Intensive Care Unit

Early diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock has been unambiguously linked to lower mortality and better patient outcomes. Despite this, there is a strong unmet need for a reliable clinical tool that can be used for large-scale automated screening to identify high-risk patients. We addressed the following questions: Can a novel algorithm to identify patients at high risk of septic shock 24 hours before diagnosis be discovered using available clinical data? What are performance characteristics of this predictive algorithm? Can current metrics for evaluation of sepsis be improved using novel algorithm? Publicly available data from the intensive care unit setting was used to build septic shock and control patient cohorts. Using Bayesian networks, causal relationships between diagnosis groups, procedure groups, laboratory results, and demographic data were inferred. Predictive model for septic shock 24 hours prior to digital diagnosis was built based on inferred causal networks. Sepsis risk scores were augmented by de novo inferred model and performance was evaluated. A novel predictive model to identify high-risk patients 24 hours ahead of time, with area under curve of 0.81, negative predictive value of 0.87, and a positive predictive value as high as 0.65 was built. The specificity of quick sequential organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and modified early warning score was improved when augmented with the novel model, whereas no improvements were made to the sequential organ failure assessment score. We used a data-driven, expert knowledge agnostic method to build a screening algorithm for early detection of septic shock. The model demonstrates strong performance in the data set used and provides a basis for expanding this work toward building an algorithm that is used to screen patients based on electronic medical record data in real time.

Impact of Prehospital Mobile Intensive Care Unit Intervention on Mortality of Patients with Sepsis

OBJECTIVE

The outcome of sepsis relies on the early diagnosis and implementation of appropriate treatments. For management of out-of-hospital patients with sepsis, prehospital emergency services, named Service d'Aide Médicale d'Urgence (SAMU) in France, dispatch to the scene an emergency mobile team (EMT) or a mobile intensive care unit (MICU) based on the patient's severity. Therefore, patients are admitted to the emergency department (ED) or to the intensive care unit (ICU). The impact of MICU intervention on patient's prognosis remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to describe the impact of MICU intervention on mortality on day 28 (D28) of patients with sepsis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on patients with sepsis managed by prehospital teams, MICU or EMT, before admission to the ED or ICU. The primary outcome was mortality on D28.

RESULTS

The SAMU received 30,642 calls during the study period with 140 patients with suspected sepsis. The suspected origin of sepsis was mainly pulmonary for 78 (55%) patients. Thirteen (9%) patients died on D28, 12 in the ED and 1 in the ICU. Two patients were admitted to the hospital by a MICU. After adjusting for confounding factors, the relative risk of mortality on D28 for patients admitted to the hospital by a MICU was 0.40.

CONCLUSION

We describe an association between MICU intervention and mortality on D28. MICU intervention for out-of-hospital patients with sepsis is associated with 60% reduced mortality on D28. Larger studies are needed to confirm the impact of the intervention of MICU on mortality of patients with sepsis.

Derivation and internal validation of the screening to enhance prehospital identification of sepsis (SEPSIS) score in adults on arrival at the emergency department

Background

Prehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians.

Methods

We derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n = 38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n = 16063, 70%) and validation (n = 6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline.

Results

‘High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis’ was present in 3.7% of derivation (n = 593) and validation (n = 254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p < 0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85–0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84–0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score ≥ 5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31–0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96–0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23–0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96–0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7–18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78–0.88).

Conclusion

This is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0642-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SOFA and qSOFA at admission to the emergency department: Diagnostic sensitivity and relation with prognosis in patients with suspected infection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of SOFA and qSOFA for predicting unfavorable outcomes, and of qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) of a Brazilian public hospital.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study conducted on a cohort of patients admitted to a Brazilian public hospital between August 2016 and November 2017 due to suspected infection. Exclusion criteria were: age <18 years, admission to the ED after 24 h of hospitalization, lack of information in the medical records, advanced comorbidities, or request of limited invasive care.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were included; 84.24% had a SOFA score of 2 or higher. The relative risk of death, need for intensive care unit (ICU) and mechanical ventilation (MV) related to a positive SOFA on admission were: 5.17 (2.11-12.87), 1.45 (1.09-2.15) and 2.74 (1.63-5.16), respectively; sensitivity was 93.7% for death, 88.5% for ICU need and 93.6% for undergoing MV. The mean length of hospital stay was 38.83 days for patients with a positive SOFA score and 8.95 days for patients with a negative score (p = 0.02). The median SOFA value was higher for the patients who died; 41% of the patients had a positive qSOFA and its sensitivity for a positive SOFA was 46.4%. The relative risk of death, ICU and MV need related to qSOFA at admission were 1.83 (1.39-2.44), 0.98 (0.82-1.16) and 1.60 (1.23-1.97), respectively, and its sensitivity was 56.8% for death, 41.4% for ICU need and 53.6% for MV.

CONCLUSION

qSOFA did not perform well as a screening tool for sepsis and for predicting a poor prognosis in the ED. SOFA, on the other hand, showed reasonable sensitivity for predicting unfavorable outcomes and scores ≥2 were related to a poor prognosis.

Is prehospital lactate testing useful in improving clinical assessment?

Introduction:

Lactate devices offer the potential for paramedics to improve patient triage and escalation of care for specific presentations. There is also scope to improve existing prehospital tools by including lactate measurement.

Method:

A literature search was conducted using the Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Sciencedirect and Scopus databases.

Findings:

Acquiring prehospital lactate measurement in trauma settings improved triage and recognition of the need for critical care. Within a medical setting, studies offered mixed results in relating prehospital lactate measurement to diagnosis, escalating treatments and mortality. The accuracy of prehospital lactate measurements acquired varies, which could impact decision making.

Conclusion:

Prehospital lactate thresholds could aid decision making, although the literature is limited and evidence varies. Lactate values of ≥4 mmol/litre in medical and ≥2.5 mmol/litre in trauma patients could signify that care should be escalated to an appropriate facility, and that resuscitative measures should be initiated, particularly with sepsis, as reflected by standardised lactate values that guide treatment in hospitals. Similarly, a lactate value of <2 mmol/litre could mean de-escalating care into the community, although further research is warranted on this.

Shock index and modified shock index as triage screening tools for sepsis

BACKGROUND

Fever is one of the common conditions encountered in the emergency department, which related to a spectrum of diseases severity. Identifying sepsis patients from uncomplicated febrile patients is challenging in the emergency triage areas and pre-hospital settings.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the triage shock index (SI) and modified shock index (MSI) in febrile patients as predictors for sepsis and sepsis-related outcomes.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Patients presented to the Emergency Department of King Khalid University Hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The analysis included all febrile adult patients triaged with a temperature of 38 °C or more from January 2016 to December 2017. Based on triage vital sign we calculate the SI with cut-off levels of ≥0.7 and ≥1 and MSI with cut-off levels of ≥1 and ≥1.3. We report the Relative Risk, Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive and Negative Predictive Values of the predictors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sepsis and sepsis-related outcomes such as hyperlactatemia, ICU admission, and 28 days mortality.

SAMPLE SIZE

274 patients.

RESULTS

274 patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of the 274 patients, 252 patient (92%) were septic, 62 patients (22%) had hyperlactatemia, 20 patients admitted to the ICU, and 5 patient died within 28 days. An MSI of ≥1 had a sensitivity of 90% for sepsis predication, 85% for ICU admission and 100% for 28 days mortality. MSI of ≥1.3 showed a specificity (59%-100%) for all the outcomes of interest. Non-significant statistical trends of greater accuracy of MSI over SI.

CONCLUSION

MSI and SI were found to be promising predictors in triaging febrile patients. However no single cut-off values of MSI or SI were found to have an optimal accuracy for prediction of sepsis and sepsis-related outcomes. Further studies are required to assess the incorporation of MSI in a multi-item scaling system for the prediction of sepsis and its related outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Small single center study and the results may not be generalizable.

Use of prehospital qSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with suspected infection: A retrospective cohort study

Background

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score has recently been introduced to the emergency department (ED) and wards, and it predicted a higher number of deaths among patients with sepsis compared with baseline risk. However, studies about the application of the qSOFA score are limited in prehospital settings. Thus, this study aimed to assess the performance of prehospital qSOFA score in predicting the risk of mortality among patients with infection.

Methods

This single center, retrospective cohort study was conducted in a Japanese tertiary care teaching hospital between April 2016 and March 2017. We enrolled all consecutive adult patients transported to the hospital by ambulance and admitted to the ED due to a suspected infection. We calculated the prehospital qSOFA score using the first vital sign obtained at the scene by emergency medical service (EMS) providers. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between prehospital qSOFA positivity and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Among the 925 patients admitted to the ED due to a suspected infection, 51.1% (473/925) were prehospital qSOFA-positive and 48.9% (452/925) were prehospital qSOFA-negative. The in-hospital mortality rates were 14.0% (66/473) in prehospital qSOFA-positive patients and 6.0% (27/452) in prehospital qSOFA-negative patients. The Cox proportional hazard regression model revealed a strong association between prehospital qSOFA score and in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.51–3.98; p <0.01).

Conclusions

Among the patients with suspected infection who were admitted at the ED, a strong association was observed between the prehospital qSOFA score and in-hospital mortality. In order to use this score in clinical practice, future study is necessary to evaluate how infection is suspected in the prehospital arena.

Quantitative capillary refill time predicts sepsis in patients with suspected infection in the emergency department: an observational study

Background

Outcomes in emergent patients with suspected infection depend on how quickly clinicians evaluate the patients and start treatment. This study was performed to compare the predictive ability of the quantitative capillary refill time (Q-CRT) as a new rapid index versus the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score for sepsis screening in the emergency department.

Methods

This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective study of adult patients with suspected infection. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and multivariate analyses were used to explore associations of the Q-CRT with the qSOFA score, SIRS score, and lactate concentration.

Results

Of the 75 enrolled patients, 48 had sepsis. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT were 0.74, 58%, and 81%, respectively; those for the qSOFA score were 0.83, 66%, and 100%, respectively; those for the SIRS score were 0.61, 81%, and 40%, respectively, for SIRS score; and those for the lactate concentration were 0.76, 72%, and 81%, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences in the AUC between the scores. We then combined the Q-CRT and qSOFA score (Q-CRT/qSOFA combination) for sepsis screening. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT/qSOFA combination were 0.82, 83%, and 81%, respectively.

Conclusions

In this study, Q-CRT/qSOFA combination had better sensitivity than the qSOFA score alone and better specificity than the SIRS score alone. There was no significant difference in accuracy between Q-CRT/qSOFA combination and the qSOFA score or lactate concentration. The ability of the Q-CRT to predict sepsis may be similar to that of the qSOFA score or serum lactate concentration; therefore, measurement of the Q-CRT may be an alternative for invasive measurement of the blood lactate concentration in evaluating patients with suspected sepsis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0382-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative study on quick sequential organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and the shock index in prehospital emergency patients: single-site retrospective study

Aim

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, shock index (SI), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria are simple indicators for the mortality of patients in the emergency department (ED). These simple indicators using only vital signs might be more useful in prehospital care than in the ED due to their quick calculation. However, these indicators have not been compared in prehospital settings. The aim of the present study is to compare these indicators measured in prehospital care and verify whether the qSOFA score is useful for prehospital triage.

Methods

We undertook a single‐site retrospective study on patients transferred by ambulance to the Kumamoto Medical Center ED (Kumamoto, Japan) between January 2015 and December 2016. We compared areas under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves of the qSOFA score, SI, and SIRS criteria measured in prehospital care. We also carried out sensitivity and specificity analyses using the Youden index.

Results

A total of 4,827 patients were included in the present study. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the qSOFA score for in‐hospital mortality was 0.64 (0.61–0.67), which was significantly higher than those of the SIRS criteria (0.59 [0.56–0.62]) and SI (0.58 [0.54–0.62]). According to the optimal cut‐off values (qSOFA ≥ 2) decided on as the Youden index, the sensitivity of the qSOFA score was 52.3% and its specificity was 69.9%.

Conclusions

The qSOFA score had the highest AUROC among three indicators. However, it might not be practical in actual prehospital triage due to its low sensitivity.

Quick Sequential (Sepsis Related) Organ Failure Assessment: A high performance rapid prognostication tool in patients having acute pyelonephritis with upper urinary tract calculi

Purpose

To analyze the utility of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in patients with uro-sepsis due to acute pyelonephritis (APN) with upper urinary tract calculi, we conducted this study. The role of qSOFA as a tool for rapid prognostication in patients with sepsis is emerging. But there has been a great debate on its utility. Literature regarding utility of qSOFA in uro-sepsis is scarce.

Materials and Methods

Ours was a retrospective study including 162 consecutive patients who were admitted for APN with upper urinary tract calculi over a 3 and half years (total 42 months) period. We evaluated the accuracy of qSOFA in predicting inhospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and compared this with the predictive accuracy of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We used the Area Under Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve to calculate it and also calculated the optimum cut off for qSOFA score.

Results

The overall mortality and ICU admission rates were 7.4% and 12.9%, respectively. qSOFA had a higher predictive accuracy for in-hospital mortality (AUC, 0.981; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.962-1.000) and ICU admissions (AUC, 0.977; 95% CI, 0.955-0.999) than SIRS. A qSOFA score of ≥2 was an optimum cut off for predicting prognosis. In a multivariate model qSOFA ≥2 was a highly significant predictor of in-hospital mortality and ICU admissions (p<0.001).

Conclusions

qSOFA is a reliable and rapid bedside tool in patients with sepsis with accuracy more than SIRS in predicting inhospital mortality and ICU admissions.

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.

Comparison of Prognostic Accuracy of the quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment between Short- & Long-term Mortality in Patients Presenting Outside of the Intensive Care Unit - A Systematic Review & Meta-analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the ability of the qSOFA in predicting short- (≤30 days or in-hospital mortality) and long-term (>30 days) mortality among patients outside the intensive care unit setting. Studies reporting on the qSOFA and mortality were searched using MEDLINE and SCOPUS. Studies were included if they involved patients presenting to the ED with suspected infection and usage of qSOFA score for mortality prognostication. Data on qSOFA scores and mortality rates were extracted from 36 studies. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity for the qSOFA were 48% and 86% for short-term mortality and 32% and 92% for long-term mortality, respectively. Studies reporting on short-term mortality were heterogeneous (Odd ratio, OR = 5.6; 95% CI = 4.6-6.8; Higgins's I2 = 94%), while long-term mortality studies were homogenous (OR = 4.7; 95% CI = 3.5-6.1; Higgins's I2 = 0%). There was no publication bias for short-term mortality analysis. The qSOFA score showed poor sensitivity but moderate specificity for both short and long-term mortality, with similar performance in predicting both short- and long- term mortality. Geographical region was shown to have nominal significant (p = 0.05) influence on qSOFA short-term mortality prediction.

The qSOFA Score: A Simple and Accurate Predictor of Outcome in Patients with Glyphosate Herbicide Poisoning

This study aimed to investigate whether the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score at emergency department (ED) presentation can help improve the risk assessment of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide (GlySH) poisoning complications. A total of 150 patients presenting with acute glyphosate herbicide ingestion were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. The qSOFA scores at presentation, ΔqSOFA (calculated by subtracting the worst qSOFA score from 1 hr after admission from the qSOFA score at presentation), baseline characteristics, clinical courses and outcome were collected and analysed. A total of 41 patients had life-threatening complications (27.3%), and 14 patients died (9.3%). Patients with a qSOFA score of 0 at presentation had a 1.5% incidence rate of complications. As the qSOFA score at presentation increased from 1 to 3, the rate of life-threatening complications significantly increased from 29.6% to 100%. Patients with a ΔqSOFA of 1 had a higher frequency of complications than did patients with a ΔqSOFA of 0. The qSOFA score (OR: 8.39, 95% CI: 3.51-26.67) and ΔqSOFA (OR: 27.60, 95% CI: 3.87-575.67) were associated with the development of life-threatening complications in the multivariate analysis. The qSOFA score showed high sensitivity (97.56%), and the ΔqSOFA score showed high specificity (99.08%). The values of area under the curve were significantly higher in the models using the qSOFA and ΔqSOFA than they were in the models using previously known prognostic factors (p < 0.01). The clinician should pay more attention to patients with high qSOFA scores at presentation or an increase in the qSOFA score 1 hr after admission.

Derivation of a screen to identify severe sepsis and septic shock in the ED-BOMBARD vs. SIRS and qSOFA

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To predict severe sepsis/septic shock in ED patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients ≥18 admitted to two urban hospitals with a combined ED census of 162,000. Study cases included patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted via the ED. Controls comprised admissions without severe sepsis/septic shock. Using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction rule was constructed. The model's AUROC was internally validated using 1000 bootstrap samples.

RESULTS

143 study and 286 control patients were evaluated. Features predictive of severe sepsis/septic shock included: SBP ≤ 110 mm Hg, shock index/SI ≥ 0.86, abnormal mental status or GCS < 15, respirations ≥ 22, temperature ≥ 38C, assisted living facility residency, disabled immunity. Two points were assigned to SI and temperature with other features assigned one point (mnemonic: BOMBARD). BOMBARD was superior to SIRS criteria (AUROC 0.860 vs. 0.798, 0.062 difference, 95% CI 0.022-0.102) and qSOFA scores (0.860 vs. 0.742, 0.118 difference, 95% CI 0.081-0.155) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was more sensitive than SIRS ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 49%, 25.9% difference, 95% CI 18.7-33.1) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 33.6%, 41.2% difference, 95% CI 33.2-49.3) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was superior to SIRS ≥ 2 (76% vs. 45%, 32% difference, 95% CI 10-50) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (76% vs. 29%, 47% difference, 95% CI 25-63) at predicting sepsis mortality.

CONCLUSION

BOMBARD was more accurate than SIRS and qSOFA at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock and sepsis mortality.

Pre-hospital qSOFA as a predictor of sepsis and mortality

BACKGROUND

The quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) has been proposed as a simple tool to identify patients with sepsis who are at risk for poor outcomes. Its utility in the pre-hospital setting has not been fully elucidated.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of adult patients arriving by ambulance in September 2016 to an academic emergency department in Fresno, California. The qSOFA score was calculated from pre-hospital vital signs. We investigated its association with sepsis, ED diagnosis of infection, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 2292 adult medical patients transported by ambulance during the study period, the sensitivity of qSOFA for sepsis and in-hospital mortality were 42.9% and 40.6%, respectively. Specificity of qSOFA for sepsis and mortality were 93.8% and 91.9%, respectively. Of those with an ED diagnosis of infection compared to all patients, qSOFA was more specific but less sensitive for sepsis. Increasing qSOFA score was associated with a discharge diagnosis of sepsis (OR 4.21, 95% CI 3.41-5.21, p < 0.001), in-hospital mortality (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.28-4.78, p < 0.001), and ED diagnosis of infection (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.18-1.58, p < 0.001). Higher qSOFA score was associated with triage to a higher acuity zone and longer hospital and ICU length of stay, but not up-triage during ED stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-hospital qSOFA is specific, but poorly sensitive, for sepsis and sepsis outcomes, especially among patients with an ED diagnosis of infection. Higher qSOFA score was associated with worse outcomes.

The prehospital quick SOFA score is associated with in-hospital mortality in noninfected patients: A retrospective, cross-sectional study

This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting mortality among prehospital patients with and without infection. This single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted among patients who arrived via the emergency medical services (EMS). We calculated the qSOFA score and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) from prehospital records. We identified patients as infected if they received intravenous antibiotics at the emergency department or within the first 24 hours. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate and compare the performance of the qSOFA score, each physiological parameter, and the MEWS in predicting admission and in-hospital mortality in patients with and without infection. Multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the qSOFA score and other risk factors. Out of 1574 prehospital patients, 47.1% were admitted and 3.2% died in the hospital. The performance of the qSOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality in noninfected patients was 0.70, higher than for each parameter and the MEWS. The areas under the curve for the qSOFA+ model vs. the qSOFA- model was 0.77 vs. 0.68 for noninfected patients (p <0.05) and 0.71 vs. 0.68 for infected patients (p = 0.41). The likelihood ratio test comparing the qSOFA- and qSOFA+ groups demonstrated significant improvement for noninfected patients (p <0.01). Multivariate regression analysis for in-hospital mortality demonstrated that the qSOFA score is an independent prognosticator for in-hospital mortality, especially among noninfected patients (odds ratio, 3.60; p <0.01). In conclusion, the prehospital qSOFA score was associated with in-hospital mortality in noninfected patients and may be a beneficial tool for identifying deteriorating patients in the prehospital setting.

Rethinking the concept of sepsis and septic shock

Sepsis is a major global health problem and represents a challenge for physicians all over the world. The knowledge of sepsis and septic shock is a topic of interest among the scientific community and society in general. New guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock were developed in 2016, providing an update on this area. In Sepsis-3 new definitions for sepsis and septic shock were published. The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss and compare the new criteria of 2016 with the old criteria, purposing at the same time an alternative approach for this topic. SOFA criteria (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) are more complete, but too extensive and usually difficult to apply outside the intensive care units, therefore inducing potentially delay in the proper treatment. We purpose combined criteria for the selection of sepsis patients. Initially, we could apply qSOFA (quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment) criteria, due to its easy application, associated with the SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria, allowing to select the patients who are infected and need faster treatment. In that way we would use the best of old and newest criteria, allowing the early selection of patients who are infected and require faster treatment, while the search for a better and faster tool continues.

Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Principles of treatment include early antibiotic administration and operative source control. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with active negative peritoneal pressure therapy (ANPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and ameliorate the systemic damage from SCIAS. Although there is now a biologic rationale for such an intervention as well as non-standardized and erratic clinical utilization, this remains a novel therapy with potential side effects and clinical equipoise.

Methods

The Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study will constitute a prospective randomized controlled trial that will randomly allocate eligible surgical patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or use of the OA with application of an ANPTT dressing. Patients will be eligible if they have free uncontained intra-peritoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR a Predisposition-Infection-Response-Organ Dysfunction Score ≥ 3 or a World-Society-of-Emergency-Surgery-Sepsis-Severity-Score ≥ 8. The primary outcome will be 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes will be logistical, physiologic, safety, bio-mediators, microbiological, quality of life, and health-care costs. Secondary outcomes will include days free of ICU, ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and hospital at 30 days from the index laparotomy. Physiologic secondary outcomes will include changes in intensive care unit illness severity scores after laparotomy. Bio-mediator outcomes for participating centers will involve measurement of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10, procalcitonin, activated protein C (APC), high-mobility group box protein-1, complement factors, and mitochondrial DNA. Economic outcomes will comprise standard costing for utilization of health-care resources.

Discussion

Although facial closure after SCIAS is considered the current standard of care, many reports are suggesting that OA management may improve outcomes in these patients. This trial will be powered to demonstrate a mortality difference in this highly lethal and morbid condition to ensure critically ill patients are receiving the best care possible and not being harmed by inappropriate therapies based on opinion only.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095.

Characteristics and Factors Associated With the Mortality of Hypotensive Patients Attending the Emergency Department

Background

The prevalence of hypotension in emergency departments (EDs) is approximately 1-2%, but is associated with a mortality rate of 8-15%. There has never been a study in Thailand examining the epidemiology or the risk factors for early mortality of patients presenting with hypotension in the ED. Therefore, this study aimed to define the characteristics, mortality rate within 48 h and associated factors of hypotensive patients at ED.

Methods

Data of patients with hypotension attending the ED of Thammasat University Hospital (TUH) were retrospectively studied.

Results

Of the 9,000 patients seen in the TUH ED, 233 were hypotensive for a prevalence of 2.5%. Patients were old, with a mean age of 61 ± 20 years. The most common presenting symptom was fever, and sepsis was the most common cause of hypotension. The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 78 ± 8 mm Hg. Isotonic crystalloid volume resuscitation in first hour was 758 mL (interquartile range (IQR), 500 - 1,000) and the total volume to achieve a mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mm Hg was 1,142 mL (IQR, 500 - 1,500). Twenty-seven percent of patients needed vasopressor support. Nineteen patients died ≤ 48 h, giving a case fatality rate of 8.2%. Three independent factors associated with 48-h mortality were initial pulse rate > 100 beats/min (odds ratio (OR), 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05 - 16.88; P = 0.042), diagnosis of shock (OR, 13.74 (1.49 - 126.61); P = 0.021) and recurrent hypotension (OR, 6.91 (1.54 - 30.99); P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Hypotension in the ED was common and associated with high mortality rate. Better triage, patient monitoring and treatment may improve outcomes in these patients.

Getting the invite list right: a discussion of sepsis severity scoring systems in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis and randomized trial inclusion criteria

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database.

Methods

All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality.

Results

Predictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve > 0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score ≥ 2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score ≥ 8 (73.1%), SOFA ≥ 3 (75.2%), and APACHE II ≥ 14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS ≥ 8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score ≥ 3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA ≥ 4 and WSESSSS ≥ 8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality).

Conclusions

No one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest "inclusion-criteria" to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission.

Trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095; Registered on May 22, 2017.

Raising concerns about the Sepsis-3 definitions

The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery appreciates the great effort of the task force who derived and validated the Sepsis-3 definitions and considers the new definitions an important step forward in the evolution of our understanding of sepsis. Nevertheless, more than a year after their publication, we have a few concerns regarding the use of the Sepsis-3 definitions.