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

Screening tools for sepsis identification in paramedicine and other emergency contexts: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that contributes significantly to protracted hospitalisations globally. The unique positioning of paramedics and other emergency care cadres in emergency contexts enable the prospect of early identification and management of sepsis, however, a standardised screening tool still does not exist in the emergency setting. The objective of this review was to identify and recommend the most clinically ideal sepsis screening tool for emergency contexts such as emergency departments and out-of-hospital emergency contexts.

METHODS

A rapid review of five databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ProQuest Central) was undertaken, with searches performed on February 10, 2022. Covidence software was used by two authors for initial screening, and full text review was undertaken independently by each reviewer, with conflicts resolved by consensus-finding and a mediator. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and prospective observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction used an a priori template and focused on sensitivity and specificity, with ROBINS-I and ROBIS bias assessment tools employed to assess risk of bias in included studies. Study details and key findings were summarised in tables. The a priori review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3XQ5T ).

RESULTS

The literature search identified 362 results. After review, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. There were five systematic reviews, with three including meta-analysis, eleven prospective observational studies, one randomised controlled trial, and one validation study.

CONCLUSIONS

The review recognised that a paucity of evidence exists surrounding standardised sepsis screening tools in the emergency context. The use of a sepsis screening tool in the emergency environment may be prudent, however there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a single screening tool for this context. A combination of the qSOFA and SIRS may be employed to avoid 'practice paralysis' in the interim. The authors acknowledge the inherent potential for publication and selection bias within the review due to the inclusion criteria.

Sequential organ failure assessment scores to predict outcomes: from adults to neonates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Organ dysfunction severity scores (sequential organ failure assessment or SOFA) are commonly used in the adult and pediatric populations when assessing risk of mortality and adverse outcomes from sepsis. In contrast to sepsis definition in adults and children, clinical and laboratory criteria for defining neonatal sepsis have been inconclusive. More recently, studies have attempted to better understand the clinical progression of neonatal sepsis and associated mortality. This data has guided the development of a neonatal SOFA (nSOFA) score, based on common patterns of organ dysfunction observed in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although SOFA scores in the adult and pediatric populations have their limitations with moderate sensitivities and specificities depending on the clinical setting, the nSOFA score has been validated in predicting sepsis attributable mortality in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants across several patient cohorts. Furthermore, the nSOFA score has been adapted for use in neonatal disease states, other than sepsis, with similar prognostic utility.

SUMMARY

Utilizing an nSOFA scoring system for prediction of sepsis attributable mortality in preterm infants allows for targeted interventions based on risk stratification, as well as better delineation of neonatal sepsis with subsequent improvements in research and patient safety outcomes.

Comparison of the systematic Inflammatory response syndrome and the quick sequential organ failure assessment for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Awareness and prompt recognition of sepsis are essential for nurses working in the emergency department (ED), enabling them to make an initial assessment of patients and then to sort them according to their condition s severity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department by comparing the previous sepsis-2 screening tool, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and the current sepsis-3 screening tool, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).

METHODS

This systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors.

RESULTS

Five articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS.

CONCLUSION

The overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.

SOFA Score in relation to Sepsis: Clinical Implications in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognostic Assessment

Purpose

To analyze the clinical significance of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic assessment of sepsis.

Methods

140 patients with sepsis from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected as the observation group, and 40 healthy people were selected as the control group. The observation group was divided into mild group, severe group, and septic shock group by single blind grouping according to the condition of the disease, and they were also divided into survival group and death group according to the prognosis. Collect the fasting venous blood of the subjects in each group in the morning, compare the levels of total bilirubin (TBIL), blood creatinine (CR), and platelet count (PLT) in each group, and record and compare the patients' respiratory system oxygen partial pressure/inhaled oxygen concentration (po2/fio2), acute physiology and chronic health scoring system II (APACHE II), sequential organ failure assessment (sofa) score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score; Pearson analysis was used to analyze the correlation between SOFA score and other indicators; multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the prognostic risk factors of patients with sepsis; receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to analyze the value of SOFA score alone and in combination in the diagnosis, condition, and prognosis of sepsis.

Results

There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, and serum creatinine (SCR) between the control group and the observation group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, mean arterial pressure (map) po2/fio2, PLT, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score among patients in mild, severe, and septic shock groups (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in age, Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score between survival group and death group (P < 0.05). SOFA score and q-SOFA score were significantly positively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly negatively correlated with po2/fio2 and PLT; △SOFA score was significantly negatively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly positively correlated with map, po2/fio2, PLT, and GCS. Apache II score, SOFA score, and q-SOFA score were independent risk factors for sepsis patients, and △SOFA score, po2/fio2, and GCS score were protective factors (P < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of sepsis combined with SOFA score and q-SOFA score was 0.880; the AUC of sepsis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.929; the AUC of sepsis prognosis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.900.

Conclusion

SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were abnormally expressed in patients with sepsis and were risk factors for the severity of the patient's condition and prognosis. The SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were risk factors for the severity and prognosis of patients with sepsis and had some value in diagnosing sepsis and assessing the condition and prognosis, of which the combined value of the three was higher.

Comparison of different versions of the quick sequential organ failure assessment for predicting in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) is recommended to identify sepsis and predict sepsis mortality. However, some studies have recently shown its poor performance in sepsis mortality prediction. To enhance its effectiveness, researchers have developed various revised versions of the qSOFA by adding other parameters, such as the lactate-enhanced qSOFA (LqSOFA), the procalcitonin-enhanced qSOFA (PqSOFA), and the modified qSOFA (MqSOFA). This study aimed to compare the performance of these versions of the qSOFA in predicting sepsis mortality in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data obtained from an electronic register system of adult patients with sepsis between January 1 and December 31, 2019. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to determine the area under the curve (AUC), with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values calculated for the various scores.

RESULTS

Among the 936 enrolled cases, there were 835 survivors and 101 deaths. The AUCs of the LqSOFA, MqSOFA, PqSOFA, and qSOFA were 0.740, 0.731, 0.712, and 0.705, respectively. The sensitivity of the LqSOFA, MqSOFA, PqSOFA, and qSOFA were 64.36%, 51.40%, 71.29%, and 39.60%, respectively. The specificity of the four scores were 70.78%, 80.96%, 61.68%, and 91.62%, respectively. The LqSOFA and MqSOFA were superior to the qSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with sepsis in the ED, the performance of the PqSOFA was similar to that of the qSOFA and the values of the LqSOFA and MqSOFA in predicting in-hospital mortality were greater compared to qSOFA. As the added parameter of the MqSOFA was more convenient compared to the LqSOFA, the MqSOFA could be used as a candidate for the revised qSOFA to increase the performance of the early prediction of sepsis mortality.

Enhancement in Performance of Septic Shock Prediction Using National Early Warning Score, Initial Triage Information, and Machine Learning Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies reported that the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) has shown superiority over other screening tools in discriminating emergency department (ED) patients who are likely to progress to septic shock.

OBJECTIVES

To improve the performance of the NEWS for septic shock prediction by adding variables collected during ED triage, and to implement a machine-learning algorithm.

METHODS

The study population comprised adult ED patients with suspected infection. To detect septic shock within 24 h after ED arrival, the Sepsis-3 clinical criteria and nine variables were used: NEWS, age, gender, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, and oxygen saturation. The model was developed using logistic regression (LR), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and artificial neural network (ANN) algorithms. The evaluations were performed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and net reclassification index (NRI).

RESULTS

Overall, 41,687 patients were enrolled. The AUROC of the model with NEWS, age, gender, and the six vital signs (0.835-0.845) was better than that of the baseline model (0.804). The XGB model (AUROC 0.845) was the most accurate, compared with LR (0.844) and ANN (0.835). The LR and XGB models were well calibrated; however, the ANN showed poor calibration power. The LR and XGB models showed better reclassification than the baseline model with positive NRI.

CONCLUSION

The discrimination power of the model for screening septic shock using NEWS, age, gender, and the six vital signs collected at ED triage outperformed the baseline NEWS model.