Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition Change Is Not Necessarily Progress: Revision of the Sepsis Definition Should Be Based on New Scientific Insights

Comparing the Predictive Value of SOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Early Hours of Hospitalization of Sepsis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis, a deadly infection causing organ failure and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), is detected early in hospitalization using the SIRS criteria, while sequential organ failure (SOFA) assesses organ failure severity. A systematic review and meta-analysis was evaluated to investigate the predictive value of the SIRS criteria and the SOFA system for mortality in early hospitalization of sepsis patients.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were full reports in peer-reviewed journals with data on sepsis assessment using SOFA and SIRS, and their relationship with outcomes. For quality assessment, we considered study population, sepsis diagnosis criteria, and outcomes. The area under the curve (AUC) of these criteria was extracted for separate meta-analysis and forest plots.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included an average of 56.1% males and a mean age of 61.9 (±6.1) among 32,979 patients. The pooled AUC was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60-0.73) for SIRS and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.84) for SOFA. Significant heterogeneity between studies was indicated by an I2 above 50%, leading to a meta-regression analysis. This analysis, with age and patient number as moderators, revealed age as the major cause of heterogeneity in comparing the predictive value of the SOFA score with SIRS regarding the in-hospital mortality of sepsis patients (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The SOFA score outperformed the SIRS criteria in predicting mortality, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach that combines clinical judgment and other diagnostic tools for better patient management and outcomes.

Performance of hospital administrative data for detection of sepsis in Australia: The sepsis coding and documentation (SECOND) study

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is the world's leading cause of death and its detection from a range of data and coding sources, consistent with consensus clinical definition, is desirable.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of three coding definitions (explicit, implicit, and newly proposed synchronous method) for sepsis derived from administrative data compared to a clinical reference standard.

METHOD

Extraction of administrative coded data from Australian metropolitan teaching hospital with 25,000 annual overnight admissions compared to clinical review of medical records; 313 (27.9%) randomly selected adult multi-day stay hospital separations from 1,123 separations with acute infection during July 2019. Estimated prevalence and performance metrics, including positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC).

RESULTS

Clinical prevalence of sepsis was estimated at 10.7 (95% CI = 10.3-11.3) per 100 separations, and mortality rate of 11.6 (95% CI = 10.3-13.0) per 100 sepsis separations. Explicit method for case detection had high PPV (93.2%) but low NPV (55.8%) compared to the standard implicit method (74.1 and 66.3%, respectively) and proposed synchronous method (80.4% and 80.0%) compared to a standard clinical case definition. ROC for each method: 0.618 (95% CI = 0.538-0.654), 0.698 (95% CI = 0.648-0.748), and 0.802 (95% CI = 0.757-0.846), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In hospitalised Australian patients with community-onset sepsis, the explicit method for sepsis case detection underestimated prevalence. Implicit methods were consistent with consensus definition for sepsis, and proposed synchronous method had better performance.

Validation of NEWS2, SIRS, and qSOFA in Postoperative Cardiac Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The 'quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment' (qSOFA), 'Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome' (SIRS), and 'National Early Warning Score' 2 (NEWS2) scores are yet to be comparatively validated in ward-based cardiac surgical patients despite widespread routine use in clinical practice. We sought to assess the predictive validity of NEWS, SIRS, and qSOFA in identifying postoperative, ward-level cardiac surgical patients at risk of poor short-term mortality.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery at a single tertiary center between November 2014 and October 2017 were identified. Data for bedside observations, hematological results, and microbiology requests were obtained from electronic health records. Survival data were acquired from a national registry. The primary outcome was the discriminatory ability, measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), of each score for in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred forty three (male n = 1101, 71%) patients were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 2.4%. There was no significant difference in discriminatory ability of NEWS (AUROC 0.5060), SIRS (AUROC 0.4874), and qSOFA (AUROC 0.5139) for in-hospital mortality (P = 0.881). Sensitivity for this outcome was ubiquitously low (13.51-40.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

Current illness-severity scores show a low discriminatory ability for in-hospital mortality in ward-based cardiac surgical patients. Caution should be used in the application of these prognostic screening tools for early detection of poor outcomes in this population.

Validation of Sepsis-3 using survival analysis and clinical evaluation of quick SOFA, SIRS, and burn-specific SIRS for sepsis in burn patients with suspected infection

PURPOSE

Sepsis-3 is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host responses to infection; and defined using the Sepsis-3 criteria, introduced in 2016, however, the criteria need to be validated in specific clinical fields. We investigated mortality prediction and compared the diagnostic performance of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and burn-specific SIRS (bSIRS) in burn patients.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study examined burn patients in Seoul, Korea during January 2010-December 2020. Overall, 1,391 patients with suspected infection were divided into four sepsis groups using SOFA, qSOFA, SIRS, and burn-specific SIRS.

RESULTS

Hazard ratios (HRs) of all unadjusted models were statistically significant; however, the HR (0.726, p = 0.0080.001) in the SIRS ≥2 group is below 1. In the adjusted model, HRs of the SOFA ≥2 (2.426, <0.001), qSOFA ≥2 (7.198, p<0.001), and SIRS ≥2 (0.575, p<0.001) groups were significant. The diagnostic performance of dichotomized qSOFA, SIRS, and bSIRS for sepsis was defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria. The mean onset day was 4.13±2.97 according to Sepsis-3. The sensitivity of SIRS (0.989, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.982-0.994) was higher than that of qSOFA (0.841, 95% CI: 0.819-0.861) and bSIRS (0.803, 95% CI: 0.779-0.825). Specificities of qSOFA (0.929, 95% CI: 0.876-0.964) and bSIRS (0.922, 95% CI: 0.868-0.959) were higher than those of SIRS (0.461, 95% CI: 0.381-0.543).

CONCLUSION

Sepsis-3 is a good alternative diagnostic tool because it reflects sepsis severity without delaying diagnosis. SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA and bSIRS and may therefore more adequately diagnose sepsis.

Patients with Bacterial Sepsis Are Heterogeneous with Regard to Their Systemic Lipidomic Profiles

Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In the present study, we investigated the systemic/serum lipidomic profile at the time of hospital admission for patients with bacterial sepsis. The study included 60 patients; 35 patients fulfilled the most recent 2016 Sepsis-3 criteria (referred to as Sepsis-3) whereas the remaining 25 patients had sepsis only according to the previous Sepsis-2 definition and could be classified as having Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). A total of 966 lipid metabolites were identified. Patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria differed from the Sepsis-2 patients with regard to only 15 lipid metabolites, and especially sphingolipids metabolism differed between these patient subsets. A total of only 43 metabolites differed between patients with and without bacteremia, including 12 lysophosphatidylcholines and 18 triacylglycerols (15 C18/C20 fatty acid metabolites decreased and three C14 myristate acid metabolites that were increased in bacteremia). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering analyses based on the identified sphingolipids, phosphatidylcholine and triacylglycerols showed that (i) the majority of Sepsis-3 patients differed from SIRS patients especially with regard to lysophosphatidylcholine levels; (ii) the minority of Sepsis-3 patients that clustered together with the majority of SIRS patients showed lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores than the other Sepsis-3 patients; and (iii) the variation between the patients in the identified/altered sphingolipid and triacylglycerol metabolites further increased the heterogeneity of Sepsis-3 patients with regard to their systemic lipidomic profile at the time of diagnosis. To conclude, patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 criteria differ with regard to their metabolic profile, and this variation depends on disease severity.

Risk factors of sepsis among patients with qSOFA<2 in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Studies have suggested that qSOFA can be used for early detection of sepsis immediately upon arrival at the emergency department (ED). Despite this, little is known about the risk factors associated with the subsequent diagnosis of sepsis among patients with qSOFA<2 in the ED.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using ED data from a large tertiary medical center in Japan, 2018-2020. We included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) presenting to the ED with suspected infection (e.g., having a fever) and qSOFA<2. We identified patients who developed sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria, and compared patient characteristics (e.g., demographics, vital signs upon the initial triage, chief complaint, and comorbidities) between patients who developed sepsis or not. Additionally, we identified the potential risk factors of sepsis among patients with qSOFA<2 using a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

We identified 151 (7%) patients who developed sepsis among 2025 adult patients with suspected infection and qSOFA<2. Compared with patients who did not develop sepsis, patients who developed sepsis were likely to be older and have vital signs suggestive of imminent sepsis (e.g., high respiratory rate). In the multivariable logistic regression model, the potential risk factors of sepsis among patients with qSOFA<2 were older age (adjusted OR, 1.92 [95%CI 1.19-3.19]), vital signs suggestive of imminent sepsis (e.g., adjusted OR of altered mental status, 3.50 [95%CI 2.25-5.50]), receipt of oxygen therapy upon arrival at the ED (adjusted OR, 1.91 [95%CI 1.38-2.26]), chief complaint of sore throat (adjusted OR, 2.15 [95%CI 1.08-4.13]), and the presence of comorbid diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease (e.g., adjusted OR of diabetes mellitus, 1.47 [95%CI 1.10-1.96]). On the contrary, chief complaint of abdominal and chest pain were associated with a lower risk of sepsis (e.g., adjusted OR of abdominal pain, 0.26 [95%CI 0.14-0.45]).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that older age, vital signs prognosticating sepsis, and the presence of some comorbidities were the potential risk factors of sepsis in patients with qSOFA<2. These potential risk factors could be useful to efficiently recognize patients who might develop sepsis in the ED.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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

Development and internal validation of a simple prognostic score for early sepsis risk stratification in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

No validated, simple, powerful and continuously monitorable risk prediction tools are available for patients with sepsis during the early phases in the emergency department (ED). We sought to derive a novel Simple Sepsis Early Prognostic Score (SSEPS) composed of physiological indicators that do not depend on laboratory tests and that can be used by emergency clinicians in predicting outcomes in patients with sepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis of a collected data source.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with sepsis admitted to the ED of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University between July 2015 and June 2016 were included. We excluded patients who were pregnant, those with cardiac or respiratory arrest, and those using vasoactive drugs before admission to the ED.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

28-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The SSEPS consisted of age, heart rate, respiratory rate and altered consciousness. Patients in the development cohort with higher SSEPS had a significantly higher mortality (first tertile vs second tertile vs third tertile: 12.5% vs 28.6% vs 53.5%, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for SSEPS was 0.762 (95% CI 0.686 to 0.838), which was similar to Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) (area under the curve: 0.745, 95% CI 0.692 to 0.798) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) (area under the curve: 0.750, 95% CI 0.681 to 0.819). Moreover, the decision curve analysis showed that the net benefit of SSEPS was higher than SOFA and APACHE II at any probability threshold.

CONCLUSION

The SSEPS is simple and useful for clinicians in stratifying high-risk patients with sepsis at the early phase of ED admission.

DeepAISE - An interpretable and recurrent neural survival model for early prediction of sepsis

Sepsis, a dysregulated immune system response to infection, is among the leading causes of morbidity, mortality, and cost overruns in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Early prediction of sepsis can improve situational awareness among clinicians and facilitate timely, protective interventions. While the application of predictive analytics in ICU patients has shown early promising results, much of the work has been encumbered by high false-alarm rates and lack of trust by the end-users due to the 'black box' nature of these models. Here, we present DeepAISE (Deep Artificial Intelligence Sepsis Expert), a recurrent neural survival model for the early prediction of sepsis. DeepAISE automatically learns predictive features related to higher-order interactions and temporal patterns among clinical risk factors that maximize the data likelihood of observed time to septic events. A comparative study of four baseline models on data from hospitalized patients at three different healthcare systems indicates that DeepAISE produces the most accurate predictions (AUCs between 0.87 and 0.90) at the lowest false alarm rates (FARs between 0.20 and 0.25) while simultaneously producing interpretable representations of the clinical time series and risk factors.

Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Sepsis Discharge Diagnosis Codes and Short Lengths of Stay in U.S. Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

Some patients diagnosed with sepsis have very brief hospitalizations. Understanding the prevalence and clinical characteristics of these patients may provide insight into how sepsis diagnoses are being applied as well as the breadth of illnesses encompassed by current sepsis definitions.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

One-hundred ten U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset (primary cohort) and four hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts (secondary cohort used for detailed medical record reviews).

PATIENTS

Adults hospitalized from April 2016 to December 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified hospitalizations with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition codes for sepsis (including sepsis, septicemia, severe sepsis, and septic shock) and compared "short stay sepsis" patients (defined as discharge alive within 3 d) versus nonshort stay sepsis patients using detailed electronic health record data. In the Cerner cohort, 67,733 patients had sepsis discharge diagnosis codes, including 6,918 (10.2%) with short stays. Compared with nonshort stay sepsis patients, short stay patients were younger (median age 60 vs 67 yr) and had fewer comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 5 vs 13), lower rates of positive blood cultures (8.2% vs 24.1%), lower rates of ICU admission (6.2% vs 31.6%), and less frequently had severe sepsis/septic shock codes (13.5% vs 36.6%). Almost all short stay and nonshort stay sepsis patients met systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria at admission (84.5% and 87.5%, respectively); 47.2% of those with short stays had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores of 2 or greater at admission versus 73.2% of those with longer stays. Findings were similar in the secondary four-hospital cohort. Medical record reviews demonstrated that physicians commonly diagnosed sepsis based on the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, elevated lactates, or positive blood cultures without concurrent organ dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large U.S. cohort, one in 10 patients coded for sepsis were discharged alive within 3 days. Although most short stay patients met systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, they met Sepsis-3 criteria less than half the time. Our findings underscore the incomplete uptake of Sepsis-3 definitions, the breadth of illness severities encompassed by both traditional and new sepsis definitions, and the possibility that some patients with sepsis recover very rapidly.

Comparison of SOFA Score, SIRS, qSOFA, and qSOFA + L Criteria in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis

Objective

Sepsis has been defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction that develops as a result of impaired host response to infection. This study aimed to investigate sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and qSOFA + lactate criteria (qSOFA+L) in the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study was performed that included all patients diagnosed with sepsis between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017 in Izmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Clinic.

Results

A total of 976 patients diagnosed with sepsis (mean age 72.5±13.7 years, 52.7% women) over five years were included in this study. Of all patients admitted to the emergency department and diagnosed with sepsis, 37.4% (n=365) were hospitalized and 52.3% (n=191) of these patients died. Emergency department mortality was 12.5% (n=122). The mortality rate was higher in patients with qSOFA and qSOFA+L criteria ≥2 in the emergency department. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SIRS, qSOFA, or qSOFA+L criteria among patients who died in the hospital. The SOFA score (area under receiver operator characteristic curve, AUC=0.89) was highly discriminative in predicting sepsis. When the SOFA score was>11, its sensitivity and negative predictive values were both 100%. The SOFA score (AUC=0.75 and 0.72, respectively) was also highly discriminative in predicting emergency and in-hospital mortality. When the SOFA score was>11, the sensitivity and specificity of predicting emergency department mortality were 63.5% and 78.8%, respectively. The sensitivity was 65.8% and the specificity was 75.5% when describing in-hospital mortality for SOFA scores>9.

Conclusion

The SOFA score was highly sensitive and predictive in the diagnosis of sepsis. The SOFA score had a high discriminative ability to predict emergency and in-hospital mortality.

A novel procalcitonin-based score for detecting sepsis among critically ill patients

Background

Procalcitonin (PCT) has been widely investigated as an infection biomarker. The study aimed to prove that serum PCT, combining with other relevant variables, has an even better sepsis-detecting ability in critically ill patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a regional teaching hospital enrolling eligible patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, and followed them until March 31, 2017. The primary outcome measurement was the occurrence of sepsis. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the independent factors for sepsis and constructed a novel PCT-based score containing these factors. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) was applied to evaluate sepsis-detecting abilities. Finally, we validated the score using a validation cohort.

Results

A total of 258 critically ill patients (70.9±16.3 years; 55.4% man) were enrolled in the derivation cohort and further subgrouped into the sepsis group (n = 115) and the non-sepsis group (n = 143). By using the multivariate logistic regression analysis, we disclosed five independent factors for detecting sepsis, namely, “serum PCT level,” “albumin level” and “neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio” at ICU admission, along with “diabetes mellitus,” and “with vasopressor.” We subsequently constructed a PCT-based score containing the five weighted factors. The PCT-based score performed well in detecting sepsis with the cut-points of 8 points (AUROC 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–0.85; sensitivity 0.70; specificity 0.76), which was better than PCT alone, C-reactive protein and infection probability score. The findings were confirmed using an independent validation cohort (n = 72, 69.2±16.7 years, 62.5% men) (cut-point: 8 points; AUROC, 0.79; 95% CI 0.69–0.90; sensitivity 0.64; specificity 0.87).

Conclusions

We proposed a novel PCT-based score that performs better in detecting sepsis than serum PCT levels alone, C-reactive protein, and infection probability score.

Best diagnostic accuracy of sepsis combining SIRS criteria or qSOFA score with Procalcitonin and Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin outside ICU

Early diagnosis and treatment significantly reduce sepsis mortality. Currently, no gold standard has been yet established to diagnose sepsis outside the ICU. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sepsis defined by SIRS Criteria of 1991, Second Consensus Conference Criteria of 2001, modified Second Consensus Conference Criteria of 2001 (obtaining SIRS Criteria and SOFA score), Third Consensus Conference of 2016, in addition to the dosage of Procalcitonin (PCT) and MR-pro-Adrenomedullin (MR-proADM). In this prospective study, 209 consecutive patients with clinical diagnosis of sepsis were enrolled (May 2014-June 2018) outside intensive care unit (ICU) setting. A diagnostic protocol could include SIRS criteria or qSOFA score evaluation, rapid testing of PCT and MR-proADM, and SOFA score calculation for organ failure definition. Using this approach outside the ICU, a rapid diagnostic and prognostic evaluation could be achieved, also in the case of negative SIRS, qSOFA or SOFA scores with high post-test probability to reduce mortality and improve outcomes.

Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients-Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria

Background

Sepsis-3 definition uses SOFA score to discriminate sepsis from uncomplicated infection, replacing SIRS criteria that were criticized for being inaccurate. Eligibility of sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis diagnosis and the applied validation methodology using mortality as endpoint are topic of ongoing debate. We assessed the impact of different criteria on sepsis diagnosis in our ICU and devised a mathematical approach for mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria. As infectious status is often unclear at clinical deterioration, we integrated non-infected patients into analysis.

Methods

Suspected infection, SOFA and SIRS were captured for an ICU cohort of a university center over one year. For raw scores (SIRS/SOFA) and sepsis criteria (SIRS≥2/SOFA≥2/SOFA_change≥2) frequencies and associations with in-hospital mortality were assessed. Using a mathematical approach, we estimated the correlation between sepsis and in-hospital mortality serving as reference for evaluation of observed mortality correlations of sepsis criteria.

Results

Of 791 patients, 369 (47%) were infected and 422 (53%) non-infected, with an in-hospital mortality of 39% and 15%. SIRS≥2 indicated sepsis in 90% of infected patients, SOFA≥2 in 99% and SOFA_change≥2 in 77%. In non-infected patients, SIRS, SOFA and SOFA_change were ≥2 in 78%, 88% and 58%. In AUROC analyses neither SOFA nor SIRS displayed superior mortality discrimination in infected compared to non-infected patients. The mathematically estimated correlation of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was 0.10 in infected and 0 in non-infected patients. Among sepsis criteria, solely SIRS≥2 agreed with expected correlations in both subgroups (infected: r = 0.19; non-infected: r = 0.02).

Conclusions

SOFA≥2 yielded a more liberal sepsis diagnosis than SIRS≥2. None of the criteria showed an infection specific occurrence that would be essential for reliable sepsis detection. However, SIRS≥2 matched the mortality association pattern of a valid sepsis criterion, whereas SOFA-based criteria did not. With this study, we establish a mathematical approach to mortality-based evaluation of sepsis criteria.

The ability of Procalcitonin, lactate, white blood cell count and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio to predict blood stream infection. Analysis of a large database

BACKGROUND

The global burden of death due to sepsis is considerable. Early diagnosis is essential to improve the outcome of this deadly syndrome. Yet, the diagnosis of sepsis is fraught with difficulties. Patients with blood stream infection (BSI) are at an increased risk of complications and death. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four readily available biomarkers to diagnose BSI in patients with suspected sepsis.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational, Electronic Medical Record based study we compared the accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT), serum lactate concentration, total white blood cell (WBC) count and the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR) to diagnose BSI in adult patients presenting to hospital with suspected sepsis. Based on the blood culture results patients were classified into 1 of the following 5 groups: i) negative blood cultures, ii) positive for a bacterial pathogen, iii) positive for a potential pathogen, iv) fungal pathogen and v) potential contaminant. Group 2 was further divided into Gram -ve and Gram +ve pathogens. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to compare the diagnostic performance of the biomarkers.

RESULTS

There were 1767 discreet patient admissions. The median PCT concentration differed significantly across blood culture groups (p < 0.0001). The highest median PCT concentration was observed in patients with a Gram-negative pathogen (17.1 ng/mL; IQR 3.6-49.7) and the lowest PCT in patients with negative blood cultures (0.6 ng/mL; IQR 0.2-2.8). The AUROC was 0.83 (0.79-0.86) for PCT, 0.68 (0.64-0.72) for the NLCR, 0.55 (0.51-0.60) for lactate concentration and 0.52 (0.48-0.57) for the WBC count. The AUROC for PCT was significantly greater than that of the NLCR (p < 0.0001). A PCT less than 0.5 ng/mL had a negative predictive value of 95% for excluding BSI. The best cut-off value of PCT for predicting BSI was 1.5 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that PCT of less than 0.5 ng/mL may be an effective screening tool to exclude BSI as the cause of sepsis, while the diagnosis of BSI should be considered in patients with a PCT above this threshold. The total WBC count and blood lactate concentration may not be reliable biomarkers for the diagnosis of BSI. The NLCR may be a useful screening test for BSI when PCT assays are not available.

Machine learning for early detection of sepsis: an internal and temporal validation study

OBJECTIVE

Determine if deep learning detects sepsis earlier and more accurately than other models. To evaluate model performance using implementation-oriented metrics that simulate clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We trained internally and temporally validated a deep learning model (multi-output Gaussian process and recurrent neural network [MGP-RNN]) to detect sepsis using encounters from adult hospitalized patients at a large tertiary academic center. Sepsis was defined as the presence of 2 or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, a blood culture order, and at least one element of end-organ failure. The training dataset included demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, medication administrations, and labs from October 1, 2014 to December 1, 2015, while the temporal validation dataset was from March 1, 2018 to August 31, 2018. Comparisons were made to 3 machine learning methods, random forest (RF), Cox regression (CR), and penalized logistic regression (PLR), and 3 clinical scores used to detect sepsis, SIRS, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS). Traditional discrimination statistics such as the C-statistic as well as metrics aligned with operational implementation were assessed.

RESULTS

The training set and internal validation included 42 979 encounters, while the temporal validation set included 39 786 encounters. The C-statistic for predicting sepsis within 4 h of onset was 0.88 for the MGP-RNN compared to 0.836 for RF, 0.849 for CR, 0.822 for PLR, 0.756 for SIRS, 0.619 for NEWS, and 0.481 for qSOFA. MGP-RNN detected sepsis a median of 5 h in advance. Temporal validation assessment continued to show the MGP-RNN outperform all 7 clinical risk score and machine learning comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a novel deep learning model to detect sepsis. Using our data elements and feature set, our modeling approach outperformed other machine learning methods and clinical scores.

Do Sepsis-3 Criteria Facilitate Earlier Recognition of Sepsis and Septic Shock? A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

New Sepsis-3 criteria are supposed to "facilitate earlier recognition … of patients with sepsis." To test this, we performed novel and direct comparisons of Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria with respect to time differences of sepsis onset.

METHODS

In a cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients prospectively diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock according to Sepsis-1 criteria between 01/2010 and 12/2015, the time differences between meeting Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria as time of sepsis onset and the corresponding differences in illness severity were tested. Similar comparisons were performed for septic shock subset meeting different Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria. Patients with non-ICU-acquired sepsis and patients with sepsis onset more than 48 h postadmission (ICU-acquired sepsis) were analyzed separately to account for differences in availability of routinely collected organ dysfunction data.

RESULTS

A total of 10,905 ICU patients were screened; 862 patients met Sepsis-1 criteria, of whom 834 (97%) also met Sepsis-3 criteria. In patients, admitted to the ICU with sepsis, Sepsis-3 criteria compared with Sepsis-1 criteria were more frequently fulfilled within the first 3 h (84% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).In patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, sepsis onset was in 50% at least 1 day earlier after application of Sepsis-3 (P = 0.011). These patients were systemic inflammatory response syndrome negative at the earlier sepsis onset, but suffered already from organ dysfunction. Sepsis-3 criteria were timely in 86% and 1 day delayed in 7%. Only 7% (8 patients) did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria in this group. These patients had already an increased SOFA score and did develop neither a further increase nor the new septic shock criteria. Classification according to Sepsis-3 reduced the proportion of septic shock (51% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).Twenty-eight-day mortality was 38% for new septic shock compared with 33% of Sepsis-1 septic shock (P > 0.05). Patients not detected by Sepsis-3 had a 28-day mortality of 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis-3 criteria facilitate an earlier and more predictive recognition of sepsis and septic shock in patients with non-ICU and ICU-acquired sepsis primarily diagnosed by Sepsis-1 criteria. These results require further validation with prospectively collected data.

qSOFA score for prediction of sepsis outcome in emergency department

Objective:

The third international consensus definition for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis 3) task force recently introduced qSOFA (quick sequential organ failure assessment) as a score for detection of patients at risk of sepsis outside of intensive care units. We performed this study to evaluate the validity of qSOFA for early detection and risk stratification of septic patients in emergency department.

Methods:

We conducted this study in an emergency department of the largest university affiliated hospital in northwest of Iran from Sept 2015 to Sept 2016. One hundred and forty patients who were SIRS positive with a suspected infection without alternative diagnosis and a microbiological proven infection were enrolled in this study. qSOFA was calculated for each patient and correlated with sepsis grades and mortality.

Results:

From 140 patients 84 (60%) had positive qSOFA score and 56 (40%) patients had negative qSOFA score. Our results showed that near half of patients with positive qSOFA expired during their stay in hospital while this was about 5% for patients with negative qSOFA. ROC curve of study regarding prediction of outcome with qSOFA showed an area under curve of 0.59. (P value: 0.04). Time spent to sepsis detection was 16 minutes shorter with qSOFA score compared to SIRS criteria in this study.

Conclusion:

In patients with suspected sepsis, qSOFA has acceptable value for risk stratification of severity, multi organ failure and mortality. It seems that education of medical staff and frequent screening of patients for warning signs can help to increase the value of qSOFA in prediction of mortality in critically ill septic patients.

Biomarkers of inflammation and the etiology of sepsis

Sepsis is characterized as a life-threatening organ dysfunction syndrome that is caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The main etiological causes of sepsis are bacterial, fungal, and viral infections. Last decades clinical and preclinical research contributed to a better understanding of pathophysiology of sepsis. The dysregulated host response in sepsis is complex, with both pathogen-related factors contributing to disease, as well as immune-cell mediated inflammatory responses that can lead to adverse outcomes in early or advanced stages of disease. Due to its heterogenous nature, clinical diagnosis remains challenging and sepsis-specific treatment options are still lacking. Classification and early identification of patient subgroups may aid clinical decisions and improve outcome in sepsis patients. The initial clinical presentation is rather similar in sepsis of different etiologies, however, inflammatory profiles may be able to distinguish between different etiologies of infections. In this review, we summarize the role and the discriminating potency of host-derived inflammatory biomarkers in the context of the main etiological types of sepsis.

Development and Validation of a Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment-Based Machine-Learning Model for Mortality Prediction in Patients with Suspected Infection in the Emergency Department

The quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score has been introduced to predict the likelihood of organ dysfunction in patients with suspected infection. We hypothesized that machine-learning models using qSOFA variables for predicting three-day mortality would provide better accuracy than the qSOFA score in the emergency department (ED). Between January 2016 and December 2018, the medical records of patients aged over 18 years with suspected infection were retrospectively obtained from four EDs in Korea. Data from three hospitals (n = 19,353) were used as training-validation datasets and data from one (n = 4234) as the test dataset. Machine-learning algorithms including extreme gradient boosting, light gradient boosting machine, and random forest were used. We assessed the prediction ability of machine-learning models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and DeLong's test was used to compare AUROCs between the qSOFA scores and qSOFA-based machine-learning models. A total of 447,926 patients visited EDs during the study period. We analyzed 23,587 patients with suspected infection who were admitted to the EDs. The median age of the patients was 63 years (interquartile range: 43-78 years) and in-hospital mortality was 4.0% (n = 941). For predicting three-day mortality among patients with suspected infection in the ED, the AUROC of the qSOFA-based machine-learning model (0.86 [95% CI 0.85-0.87]) for three -day mortality was higher than that of the qSOFA scores (0.78 [95% CI 0.77-0.79], p < 0.001). For predicting three-day mortality in patients with suspected infection in the ED, the qSOFA-based machine-learning model was found to be superior to the conventional qSOFA scores.

Depressed sympathovagal modulation indicates sepsis in patients with suspected infection

This study explored whether sympathovagal modulation assessed through frequency domains of heart rate variability (HRV) can indicate sepsis in patients with suspected infection.In total, 370 consecutive adult patients with suspected infection admitted to the emergency department were enrolled in this single-center cohort study. A continuous 10-minute electrocardiography for HRV analysis was recorded immediately for these patients after inclusion. Patients were stratified into non-sepsis and sepsis groups based on a sepsis-related organ failure assessment score of ≥2 that met the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis. Seven frequency domains of HRV were compared between these 2 groups.Compared with the non-sepsis group (n = 98), the sepsis group (n = 272) had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory tract infection, higher total power, higher very-low-frequency component, higher high-frequency (HF) component, higher normalized HF component, lower normalized low-frequency (LF) component, and lower LF component/HF component ratio (LF/HF). Multiple logistic regression model identified HF component (odds ratio [OR] = 0.994; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.990-0.999) and LF/HF (OR = 0.494; 95% CI, 0.423-0.578) as significant variables associated with sepsis. The area under receiver operating characteristic curves of HF component and LF/HF was 0.741 (95% CI, 0.685-0.797) and 0.930 (95% CI, 0.900-0.960), respectively, in identifying sepsis in patients with suspected infection.Tilted sympathovagal balance toward increased vagal activity and depressed sympathetic modulation, assessed by the HF component and LF/HF, may indicate sepsis in patients with suspected infection.

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.

Back to Basics: Recognition of Sepsis with New Definition

Patients with serious infections at risk of deterioration represent highly challenging clinical situations, and in particular for junior doctors. A comprehensive clinical examination that integrates the assessment of vital signs, hemodynamics, and peripheral perfusion into clinical decision making is key to responding promptly and effectively to evolving acute medical illnesses, such as sepsis or septic shock. Against this background, the new concept of sepsis definition may provide a useful link between junior doctors and consultant decision making. The purpose of this article is to introduce the updated definition of sepsis and suggest its practical implications, with particular emphasis on integrative clinical assessment, allowing for the rapid identification of patients who are at risk of further deterioration.

Comparative Usefulness of Sepsis-3, Burn Sepsis, and Conventional Sepsis Criteria in Patients With Major Burns

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the ability of new sepsis (S3) criteria (compared with previous definitions of sepsis [S1] and burn sepsis criteria) to accurately determine the mortality in severe burns patients with sepsis.

DESIGN

This was retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Burn ICU of Burn Center, Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea.

PATIENTS

A total of 1,185 adult patients (mean age, 49.1 yr) were admitted between January 2009 and December 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

The 1,185 patients enrolled in the present study and were then re-evaluated based on S1, burn sepsis, and S3 criteria, following which 565 patients, 812 patients, and 809 patients were diagnosed with sepsis based on S1, burn sepsis, S3 criteria, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

For diagnostic performance, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and likelihood ratio were calculated. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to determine the accuracy of mortality prediction. The optimal cutoff value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was calculated by the decision tree method. Total body surface area burned was 33.4%. Patients were identified with sepsis using S1 (812), S3 (809), and burn sepsis (565) criteria. Overall mortality was 20.3%, highest (82.2%) and lowest (26.5%) occurred with new septic shock (SH3) and S3, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for burn sepsis (84.6% and 61.8%) and SH3 (63.1% and 96.5%) were reported. Area under the curve values for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were the highest in all sepsis categories. With Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 6 (with infection), the accuracy was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The S3 criteria failed to show superior prognostic accuracy for mortality in severely burned patients. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 6 may be a better criterion for the diagnosis of sepsis in burns patients.

Procalcitonin and MR-Proadrenomedullin Combination with SOFA and qSOFA Scores for Sepsis Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Diagnostic Algorithm

PURPOSE

The third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) defined sepsis as an organ dysfunction consequent to infection. A Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at least 2 identifies sepsis. In this study, procalcitonin (PCT) and midregional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) were evaluated along with SOFA and quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

METHODS

A total of 109 septic patients and 50 patients with noninfectious disease admitted at the Department of Internal Medicine and General Surgery of the University Hospital Campus Bio-Medico of Rome were enrolled. PCT and MR-proADM were measured with immunoluminometric assays (Brahms, Hennigsdorf, Germany). Data were analyzed with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, likelihood ratios, and Mann-Whitney U test using MedCalc 11.6.1.0 package.

RESULTS

At ROC curve analysis, PCT showed the highest area under the curve and positive likelihood ratio values of 27.42 in sepsis and 43.62 in septic shock. MR-proADM and SOFA score showed a comparable performance. In septic shock, lactate showed the most accurate diagnostic ability. In sepsis, the best combination was PCT with MR-proADM with a posttest probability of 0.988. Based upon these results, an algorithm for sepsis and septic shock diagnosis has been developed. MR-proADM, SOFA, and qSOFA scores significantly discriminated survivors from nonsurvivors.

CONCLUSIONS

PCT and MR-proADM test combination represent a good tool in sepsis diagnosis and prognosis suggesting their inclusion in the diagnostic algorithm besides SOFA and qSOFA scores. Furthermore, MR-proADM as marker of organ dysfunction, with a turn around time of about 30 min, has the advantage to be more objective and rapid than SOFA score.

Biomarkers in Shock Patients and Their Value as A Prognostic Tool; A Prospective Multi-Center Cohort Study

Objective

To investigate the prognostic value of clinical and laboratory tests in prediction of outcome in patients at day 30 post presentation to hospital with shock and to determine the prognostic value of mid regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) on mortality prediction at 30 days in the same patient cohort.

Method

This prospective multicenter cohort study analyzed data from patients who had presenting with shock to the emergency departments of eleven urban, tertiary-care University hospitals in Spain between March, 2011 and May, 2011. Recruitment of patients was via convenience sampling. Inclusion criteria included age between 14 and 100 years with clinical diagnostic criteria of shock on admission. Various patient parameters were analysed, such as age, sex, past medical history. Other clinical variables were measured on arrival to hospital, including sequential organ failure assessment score (score SOFA), blood pressure, oxygen saturations, capillary refill time and shock index (SI). Laboratory variables investigated included base excess, MR-proADM, lactate, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT).

Results

There were 212 patients included in the study from the eleven hospitals involved. The mean age was 72.2 years old and 60.4% of the patients were men. In the discriminant analysis only age, MR-proADM and PCT remained in the final discriminant equation. The separate analysis of MR-proADM showed that, in the non-survivors group, MR-proADM levels are significantly higher than those found in the group of survivors (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Age, PCT and MR-proADM were useful to predict short-term mortality in patients presenting to the emergency department shock. This suggests that PCT and MR-proADM in combination with the most common prediction models will improve prognostic value.

Epidemiology of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria in Undifferentiated Patients and Association With Suspected Infection and Sepsis

BACKGROUND

The role of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in sepsis screening and management is controversial, particularly as they were derived only in patients with suspected infection. We examined the epidemiology and prognostic value of qSOFA in undifferentiated patients.

METHODS

We identified patients with ≥ 2 qSOFA criteria within 1 day of admission among all adults admitted to 85 US hospitals from 2012 to 2015 and assessed for suspected infection (using clinical cultures and administration of antibiotics) and sepsis (as defined on the basis of Sepsis-3 criteria). We also examined the discrimination of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality among patients with and without suspected infection, using regression models.

RESULTS

Of 1,004,347 hospitalized patients, 271,500 (27.0%) were qSOFA-positive on admission. Compared with qSOFA-negative patients, qSOFA-positive patients were older (median age, 65 vs 58 years), required ICU admission more often (28.5% vs 6.5%), and had higher mortality (6.7% vs 0.8%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). Sensitivities of qSOFA for suspected infection and sepsis were 41.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-41.5%) and 62.8% (95% CI, 62.4%-63.1%), respectively; positive predictive values were 31.0% (95% CI, 30.8%-31.1%) and 17.4% (95% CI, 17.2%-17.5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for mortality was lower for qSOFA in patients with suspected infection vs those without (0.814 vs 0.875; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one in three patients who are qSOFA-positive on admission has suspected infection, and one in six has sepsis. qSOFA also has low sensitivity for identifying suspected infection and sepsis, and its prognostic significance is not specific to infection. More sensitive and specific tools for sepsis screening and risk stratification are needed.

Hospital outcomes and cumulative burden from complications in type 2 diabetic sepsis patients: a cohort study using administrative and hospital-based databases

BACKGROUND

The association between type 2 diabetes and hospital outcomes of sepsis remains controversial when severity of diabetes is not taken into consideration. We examined this association using nationwide and hospital-based databases.

METHODS

The first part of this study was mainly conducted using a nationwide database, which included 1.6 million type 2 diabetic patients. The diabetic complication burden was evaluated using the adapted Diabetes Complications Severity Index score (aDCSI score). In the second part, we used laboratory data from a distinct hospital-based database to make comparisons using regression analyses.

RESULTS

The nationwide study included 19,719 type 2 diabetic sepsis patients and an equal number of nondiabetic sepsis patients. The diabetic sepsis patients had an increased odds ratio (OR) of 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.1-1.19) for hospital mortality. The OR for mortality increased as the complication burden increased [aDCSI scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ⩾5 with ORs of 0.91, 0.87, 1.14, 1.25, 1.56, and 1.77 for mortality, respectively (all p < 0.001)].The hospital-based database included 1054 diabetic sepsis patients. Initial blood glucose levels did not differ significantly between the surviving and deceased diabetic sepsis patients: 273.9 ± 180.3 versus 266.1 ± 200.2 mg/dl (p = 0.095). Moreover, the surviving diabetic sepsis patients did not have lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; %) values than the deceased patients: 8.4 ± 2.6 versus 8.0 ± 2.5 (p = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

For type 2 diabetic sepsis patients, the diabetes-related complication burden was the major determinant of hospital mortality rather than diabetes per se, HbA1c level, or initial blood glucose level.

[New Sepsis-3 definition : Do we have to treat sepsis before we can diagnose it from now on?]

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) have been available since the beginning of 2016. SEPSIS-3 completely replaces the old SIRS criteria in the definition of sepsis and defines sepsis from now on as "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". However, it seems questionable whether in clinical practice the new definition is really superior to the old one. The most important question is the following: Is it helpful to have a definition that first recognizes a patient once organ dysfunction has occurred and the patient already needs intensive care?

Sepsis: An Update on Current Practices in Diagnosis and Management

Despite several advancements in care over the last few decades, sepsis continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality burden in the United States. With its varied presentations, cases of sepsis are likely to be encountered by general practitioners in both inpatient and outpatient settings. In the recent years, there has been much debate about the appropriate criteria to diagnose patients with sepsis with a concurrent change in management guidelines. This article reviews definitions, diagnosis and treatment guidelines in current practice in the management of patients with sepsis.

The Central Role of the Inflammatory Response in Understanding the Heterogeneity of Sepsis-3

In sepsis-3, in contrast with sepsis-1, the definition "systemic inflammatory response" has been replaced with "dysregulated host response", and "systemic inflammatory response syndrome" (SIRS) has been replaced with "sequential organ failure assessment" (SOFA). Although the definition of sepsis has changed, the debate regarding its nature is ongoing. What are the fundamental processes controlling sepsis-induced inflammation, immunosuppression, or organ failure? In this review, we discuss the heterogeneity of sepsis-3 and address the central role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of sepsis. An unbalanced pro- and anti-inflammatory response, inflammatory resolution disorder, and persistent inflammation play important roles in the acute and/or chronic phases of sepsis. Moreover, powerful links exist between inflammation and other host responses (such as the neuroendocrine response, coagulation, and immunosuppression). We suggest that a comprehensive evaluation of the role of the inflammatory response will improve our understanding of the heterogeneity of sepsis.

A Comparison of the Quick-SOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria for the Diagnosis of Sepsis and Prediction of Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies were published to validate the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), namely in comparison with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the qSOFA and SIRS in patients outside the ICU.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science database from February 23, 2016 until June 30, 2017 to identify full-text English-language studies published after the Sepsis-3 publication comparing the qSOFA and SIRS and their sensitivity or specificity in diagnosing sepsis, as well as hospital and ICU length of stay and hospital mortality. Data extraction from the selected studies followed the recommendations of the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

From 4,022 citations, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling all the studies, a total of 229,480 patients were evaluated. The meta-analysis of sensitivity for the diagnosis of sepsis comparing the qSOFA and SIRS was in favor of SIRS (risk ratio [RR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.40-2.24; P < .0001; I² = 100%). One study described the specificity for the diagnosis of infection comparing SIRS (84.4%; 95% CI, 76.2-90.6) with the qSOFA (97.3%; 95% CI < 92.1-99.4); the qSOFA demonstrated better specificity. The meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of six studies comparing the qSOFA and SIRS favored the qSOFA (RR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P = .002; I² = 48%) as a predictor of inhospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIRS was significantly superior to the qSOFA for sepsis diagnosis, and the qSOFA was slightly better than the SIRS in predicting hospital mortality. The association of both criteria could provide a better model to initiate or escalate therapy in patients with sepsis.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017067645.

SIRS in the Time of Sepsis-3

Severe sepsis is a common, deadly, and diagnostically vexing condition. Recent recommendations for diagnosing sepsis, referred to as consensus guidelines, provide a definition of sepsis and remove the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) as a component of the diagnostic process. A concise definition of sepsis is welcomed. However, the approach to developing these guidelines, although thorough, had weaknesses. Emphasis is placed on mortality prediction rather than on early diagnosis. Diagnostic criteria are recommended to replace current criteria without evidence of any effect that their use would have on mortality. SIRS is a prevalent feature of patients with sepsis, should remain an important component of the diagnostic process, and remains a valuable term for discussing patients with life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by infection.

Sepsis and Septic Shock Strategies

Three therapeutic principles most substantially improve organ dysfunction and survival in sepsis: early, appropriate antimicrobial therapy; restoration of adequate cellular perfusion; timely source control. The new definitions of sepsis and septic shock reflect the inadequate sensitivity, specify, and lack of prognostication of systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment more effectively prognosticates in sepsis and critical illness. Inadequate cellular perfusion accelerates injury and reestablishing perfusion limits injury. Multiple organ systems are affected by sepsis and septic shock and an evidence-based multipronged approach to systems-based therapy in critical illness results in improve outcomes.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality - a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department

Background

We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of qSOFA as a risk stratification tool for patients admitted with infection compared to traditional SIRS criteria or our triage system; the Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS).

Methods

The study was an observational cohort study performed at one Emergency Department (ED) in an urban university teaching hospital in Norway, with approximately 20,000 visits per year. All patients >16 years presenting with symptoms or clinical signs suggesting an infection (n = 1535) were prospectively included in the study from January 1 to December 31, 2012. At arrival in the ED, vital signs were recorded and all patients were triaged according to RETTS vital signs, presenting infection, and sepsis symptoms. These admission data were also used to calculate qSOFA and SIRS. Treatment outcome was later retrieved from the patients’ electronic records (EPR) and mortality data from the Norwegian population registry.

Results

Of the 1535 admitted patients, 108 (7.0%) fulfilled the Sepsis2 criteria for severe sepsis. The qSOFA score ≥2 identified only 33 (sensitivity 0.32, specificity 0.98) of the patients with severe sepsis, whilst the RETTS-alert ≥ orange identified 92 patients (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.55). Twenty-six patients died within 7 days of admission; four (15.4%) of them had a qSOFA ≥2, and 16 (61.5%) had RETTS ≥ orange alert. Of the 68 patients that died within 30 days, only eight (11.9%) scored ≥2 on the qSOFA, and 45 (66.1%) had a RETTS ≥ orange alert.

Discussion

In order to achieve timely treatment for sepsis, a sensitive screening tool is more important than a specific one. Our study is the fourth study were qSOFA finds few of the sepsis cases in prehospital or at arrival to the ED. We add information on the RETTS triage system, the two highest acuity levels together had a high sensitivity (85%) for identifying sepsis at arrival to the ED - and thus, RETTS should not be replaced by qSOFA as a screening and trigger tool for sepsis at arrival.

Conclusion

In this observational cohort study, qSOFA failed to identify two thirds of the patients admitted to an ED with severe sepsis. Further, qSOFA failed to be a risk stratification tool as the sensitivity to predict 7-day and 30-day mortality was low. The sensitivity was poorer than the other warning scores already in use at the study site, RETTS-triage and the SIRS criteria.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-017-0399-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit

Background

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) Task Force recently introduced a new clinical score termed quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). We attempted to compare the discriminatory capacity of the qSOFA versus the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) score for predicting mortality, ICU-free days, and organ dysfunction-free days in patients with suspicion of infection outside the ICU.

Methods

The Weill Cornell Medicine Registry and Biobank of Critically Ill Patients is an ongoing cohort of critically ill patients, for whom biological samples and clinical information (including vital signs before and during ICU hospitalization) are prospectively collected. Using such information, qSOFA and SIRS scores outside the ICU (specifically, within 8 hours before ICU admission) were calculated. This study population was therefore comprised of patients in the emergency department or the hospital wards who had suspected infection, were subsequently admitted to the medical ICU and were included in the Registry and Biobank.

Results

One hundred fifty-two patients (67% from the emergency department) were included in this study. Sixty-seven percent had positive cultures and 19% died in the hospital. Discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.74; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.66–0.81] was significantly greater compared with SIRS criteria (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51–0.67; p = 0.03). The qSOFA performed better than SIRS regarding discrimination for ICU-free days (p = 0.04), but not for ventilator-free days (p = 0.19), any organ dysfunction-free days (p = 0.13), or renal dysfunction-free days (p = 0.17).

Conclusions

In patients with suspected infection who eventually required admission to the ICU, qSOFA calculated before their ICU admission had greater accuracy than SIRS for predicting mortality and ICU-free days. However, it may be less clear whether qSOFA is also better than SIRS criteria for predicting ventilator free-days and organ dysfunction-free days. These findings may help clinicians gain further insight into the usefulness of qSOFA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Research in Review: Advancing Critical Care Practice

Research published in 2016 identified strategies to enhance acute and critical care, initiated discussions on professional roles and responsibilities, clarified complex care issues, and led to robust debate. Some of this important work addressed strategies to prevent delirium and pressure ulcers, considerations for pain management within the context of the opioid abuse crisis, strategies to guide fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure, and ways to enhance care for family members of intensive care patients. The new sepsis definitions highlight the importance of detecting and providing care to patients with sepsis outside of critical care areas. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is an example of the advancement of research in genomics and personalized medicine and of the need to understand the care implications of these therapies. Other research topics include interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making as well as nurses' role in family conferences. Resources such as policies related to medical futility and inappropriate care and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' healthy work environment standards may inform conversations and provide strategies to address these complex issues.

Sepsis-3 definitions predict ICU mortality in a low-middle-income country

Background

Sepsis-3 definitions were published recently and validated only in high-income countries. The aim of this study was to assess the new criteria’s accuracy in stratifying mortality as compared to its predecessor (Sepsis-2) in a Brazilian public intensive care unit (ICU) and to investigate whether the addition of lactate values would improve stratification.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study conducted between 2010 and 2015 in a public university’s 19-bed ICU. Data from patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. ICU mortality was compared across categories of both Sepsis-2 definitions (sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock) and Sepsis-3 definitions (infection, sepsis and septic shock). Area under the receiving operator characteristic curves were constructed, and the net reclassification index and integrated discrimination index for the addition of lactate as a categorical variable to each stratum of definition were evaluated.

Results

The medical records of 957 patients were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. Mean age was 52 ± 19 years, median SAPS 3 was 65 [50,79], respiratory tract infection was the most common cause (42%, 402 patients), and 311 (32%) patients died in ICU. The ICU mortality rate was progressively higher across categories of sepsis as defined by the Sepsis-3 consensus: infection with no organ dysfunction—7/103 (7%); sepsis—106/419 (25%); and septic shock—198/435 (46%) (P < 0.001). For Sepsis-2 definitions, ICU mortality was different only across the categories of severe sepsis [43/252-(17%)] and septic shock [250/572-(44%)] (P < 0.001); sepsis had a mortality of 18/135-(13%) (P = 0.430 vs. severe sepsis). When combined with lactate, the definitions’ accuracy in stratifying ICU mortality only improved with lactate levels above 4 mmol/L. This improvement occurred in the severe sepsis and septic shock groups (Sepsis-2) and the no-dysfunction and septic shock groups (Sepsis-3). Multivariate analysis demonstrated similar findings.

Conclusions

In a Brazilian ICU, the new Sepsis-3 definitions were accurate in stratifying mortality and were superior to the previous definitions. We also observed that the new definitions’ accuracy improved progressively with severity. Serum lactate improved accuracy for values higher than 4 mmol/L in the no-dysfunction and septic shock groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0204-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.