Predictive performance of NEWS and qSOFA in immunocompromised sepsis patients at the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Sepsis has a high incidence and a poor prognosis. Early recognition is important to facilitate timely initiation of adequate care. Sepsis screening tools, such as the (quick) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ((q)SOFA) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS), could help recognize sepsis. These tools have been validated in a general immunocompetent population, while their performance in immunocompromised patients, who are particularly at risk of sepsis development, remains unknown. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study performed at the emergency department. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with a suspected infection, while ≥ two qSOFA and/or SOFA criteria were used to classify patients as having suspected sepsis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 1516 patients, of which 40.5% used one or more immunosuppressives, were included. NEWS had a higher prognostic accuracy as compared to qSOFA for predicting poor outcome among immunocompromised sepsis patients. Of all tested immunosuppressives, high-dose glucocorticoid therapy was associated with a threefold increased risk of both in-hospital and 28-day mortality. CONCLUSION: In contrast to NEWS, qSOFA underestimates the risk of adverse outcome in patients using high-dose glucocorticoids. As a clinical consequence, to adequately assess the severity of illness among immunocompromised patients, health care professionals should best use the NEWS.

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study. RESULTS: Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00-1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h. CONCLUSIONS: qSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions.

The value of IL-6, PCT, qSOFA, NEWS, and SIRS to predict septic shock after Percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous methods available for predicting sepsis following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. This study aims to compare the predictive value of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SISR), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and procalcitonin (PCT) for septicemia. METHODS: Patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy were included in the study and divided into a control group and a septic shock group. The effectiveness of qSOFA, SIRS, NEWS, Interleukin-6, and Procalcitonin was assessed, with Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and Area Under the Curve used to compare the predictive accuracy of these four indicators. RESULTS: Among the 401 patients, 16 cases (3.99%) developed septic shock. Females, elderly individuals, and patients with positive urine culture and positive nitrite in urine were found to be more susceptible to septic shock. PCT, IL-6, SIRS, NEWS, qSOFA, and surgical time were identified as independent risk factors for septic shock. The cutoff values are as follows: qSOFA score > 0.50, SIRS score > 2.50, NEWS score > 2.50, and IL-6 > 264.00 pg/ml. Among the 29 patients identified by IL-6 as having sepsis, 16 were confirmed to have developed sepsis. The qSOFA identified 63 septicemia cases, with 16 confirmed to have developed septicemia; NEWS identified 122 septicemia cases, of which 14 cases actually developed septicemia; SIRS identified 128 septicemia patients, with 16 confirmed to have developed septicemia. In terms of predictive ability, IL-6 (AUC 0.993, 95% CI 0.985 ~ 1) demonstrated a higher predictive accuracy compared to qSOFA (AUC 0.952, 95% CI 0.928 ~ 0.977), NEWS (AUC 0.824, 95% CI 0.720 ~ 0.929) and SIRS (AUC 0.928, 95% CI 0.888 ~ 0.969). CONCLUSIONS: IL-6 has higher accuracy in predicting septic shock after PCNL compared to qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS.

Early warning scores for sepsis identification and prediction of in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The early warning scores (EWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have been proposed as sepsis screening tools. This review aims to summarise and compare the performance of EWS with the qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting sepsis diagnosis and in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis. REVIEW METHODS: Seven databases were searched from January 1, 2016 until March 10, 2022. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random effects model. Overall performance was summarised by using the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristics curve. This paper adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. RESULTS: Ten studies involving 52,474 subjects were included in the review. For predicting sepsis diagnosis, the pooled sensitivity of EWS (65%, 95% CI: 55, 75) was similar to SIRS ≥2 (70%, 95% CI: 49, 85) and higher than qSOFA ≥2 (37%, 95% CI: 20, 59). The pooled specificity of EWS (77%, 95% CI: 64, 86) was higher than SIRS ≥2 (62%, 95% CI: 41, 80) but lower than qSOFA ≥2 (94%, 95% CI: 86, 98). Results were similar for the secondary outcome of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although no one scoring system had both high sensitivity and specificity, the EWS had at least equivalent values in most measures of diagnostic accuracy compared with SIRS or qSOFA. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Healthcare systems in which EWS is already in place should consider whether there is any clinical benefit in adopting qSOFA or SIRS. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This systematic review did not directly involve patient or public contribution to the manuscript.

Usefulness of the qSOFA score for predicting hospital mortality in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The quick Sequential Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) is a score that has been proposed to quickly identify patients at higher risk of death. OBJECTIVE: To describe the usefulness of the qSOFA score to predict in-hospital mortality in cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study carried out between January 2021 and December 2022. Hospital mortality was the dependent variable. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to determine the discriminative ability of qSOFA to predict in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 587 cancer patients were included. A qSOFA score higher than 1 obtained a sensitivity of 57.2%, specificity of 78.5%, a positive predictive value of 55.4% and negative predictive value of 79.7%. The AUC of qSOFA for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.70. In-hospital mortality of patients with qSOFA scores of 2 and 3 points was 52.7 and 64.4%, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 31.9% (187/587). CONCLUSION: qSOFA showed acceptable discriminative ability for predicting in-hospital mortality in cancer patients.

ANTECEDENTES: El quick Sequential Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) es una puntuación propuesta para identificar de forma rápida a pacientes con mayor probabilidad de morir. OBJETIVO: Describir la utilidad de la puntuación qSOFA para predecir mortalidad hospitalaria en pacientes con cáncer. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal realizado entre enero de 2021 y diciembre de 2022. La mortalidad hospitalaria fue la variable dependiente. Se calculó el área bajo la curva ROC (ABC) para determinar la capacidad discriminativa de qSOFA para predecir mortalidad hospitalaria. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 587 pacientes con cáncer. La puntuación qSOFA < 1 obtuvo una sensibilidad de 57.2 %, una especificidad de 78.5 %, un valor predictivo positivo de 55.4 % y un valor predictivo negativo de 79.7 %. El ABC de qSOFA para predecir mortalidad hospitalaria fue de 0.70. La mortalidad hospitalaria de los pacientes con qSOFA de 2 y 3 puntos fue de 52.7 y 64.4 %, respectivamente. La mortalidad hospitalaria fue de 31.9 % (187/587). CONCLUSIÓN: qSOFA mostró capacidad discriminativa aceptable para predecir mortalidad hospitalaria en pacientes con cáncer.

Validation of National Early Warning Score and Quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment in acute myeloid leukaemia patients treated with intensive chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a risk factor for life-threatening infections. Early diagnosis and prompt interventions are associated with better outcomes, but the prediction of infection severity remains an open question. Recently, National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores were proposed as warning clinical instruments predicting in-hospital mortality, but their role in the haematological context is still unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively assess the predictive role of NEWS and qSOFA in a large and homogeneous cohort of adult AML patients treated with intensive chemotherapy. In a total of 1048 neutropenic episodes recorded in 334 consecutive patients, the scores were applied to predict outcomes on the same day of fever onset, and after 24 and 48 h from score calculation. RESULTS: Both NEWS and qSOFA significantly predicted death, with more accuracy on the same day (NEWS AUROC 0.984 and qSOFA AUROC 0.969) and after 24 h (NEWS AUROC 0.928 and qSOFA AUROC 0.887), while remained moderately accurate after 48 h. Furthermore, also ICU admission was accurately predicted at fever onset and after 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Both scores were useful tools in the management of post chemotherapy neutropenic febrile AML patients.

A novel scoring system combining Modified Early Warning Score with biomarkers of monocyte distribution width, white blood cell counts, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio to improve early sepsis prediction in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate whether combining scoring systems with monocyte distribution width (MDW) improves early sepsis detection in older adults in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled older adults aged ≥60 years who presented with confirmed infectious diseases to the ED. Three scoring systems-namely quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and biomarkers including MDW, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and C-reactive protein (CRP), were assessed in the ED. Logistic regression models were used to construct sepsis prediction models. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, we included 522 and 2088 patients with and without sepsis in our analysis from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. NEWS ≥5 and MEWS ≥3 exhibited a moderate-to-high sensitivity and a low specificity for sepsis, whereas qSOFA score ≥2 demonstrated a low sensitivity and a high specificity. When combined with biomarkers, the NEWS-based, the MEWS-based, and the qSOFA-based models exhibited improved diagnostic accuracy for sepsis detection without CRP inclusion (c-statistics=0.842, 0.842, and 0.826, respectively). Of the three models, MEWS ≥3 with white blood cell (WBC) count ≥11 × 109/L, NLR ≥8, and MDW ≥20 demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy in all age subgroups (c-statistics=0.886, 0.825, and 0.822 in patients aged 60-74, 75-89, and 90-109 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our novel scoring system combining MEWS with WBC, NLR, and MDW effectively detected sepsis in older adults.

Utility of myxedema score as a predictor of mortality in myxedema coma.

OBJECTIVE: Myxedema crisis (MC) is a rare condition. There is a dearth of data regarding the predictors of mortality in MC. Predictive scores for mortality specific to the clinical and biochemical profile of MC are still lacking. DESIGN AND METHODS: All consecutive patients presenting with MC from September 2006 to December 2020 comprised the new cohort. Patients managed between January 1999 and August 2006 comprised the old cohort. Both cohorts were compared for the determination of secular trends. Combined analysis of both the cohorts was done for clinico-demographic profile and predictors of mortality. Myxedema score (MS) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score were evaluated in all the patients. RESULTS: A total of forty-one patients (new cohort; n = 18 and old cohort; n = 23) were enrolled into the study. There was a female predominance (80.5%). Nearly half (51.2%) of the patients were newly diagnosed with hypothyroidism on admission. Overall mortality was 60.9%. On comparative analysis among survivors and non-survivors, female gender (OR 20.4, p value 0.018), need for mechanical ventilation (OR16.4, p value 0.009), in-hospital hypotension (OR 9.1, p value 0.020), and high qSOFA score (OR 7.1, p value 0.023) predicted mortality. MS of > 90 had significantly higher mortality (OR-11.8, p value - 0.026) while MS of > 110 had 100% mortality. There was no change in secular trends over last 20 years. There was no difference in outcome of patients receiving oral or IV levothyroxine. CONCLUSION: Myxedema crisis is associated with high mortality despite improvement in health care services. The current study is first to elucidate the role of the MS in predicting mortality in patients with MC.

Comparison of Prognostic Scores for Patients with COVID-19 Presenting with Dyspnea in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Easy-to-use bedside risk assessment is crucial for patients with COVID-19 in the overcrowded emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the prognostic ability of ratio of percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (S/F); ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate (ROX); National Early Warning Score (NEWS); quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA); and confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age ≥ 65 years (CRB-65) in patients with COVID-19 presenting with dyspnea to the ED. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, clinical and demographic details of patients with COVID-19 were obtained at ED admission. S/F, ROX, NEWS, CRB-65, and qSOFA scores were calculated at the time of ED arrival. Accuracy of these five indices to predict the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and early (7-day) mortality were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in this study. Fifty patients (13.3%) required IMV within 48 h and 58 patients (15.5%) were transferred to the ICU. Seven-day mortality was 6.7% and 28-day mortality was 18.1%. Among all five scores determined from patient data on ED admission, ROX, S/F, and NEWS presented greater discriminatory performance than CRB-65 and qSOFA in predicting IMV within 48 h, ICU admission, and early mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians can effectively use S/F, ROX, and NEWS scores for rapid risk stratification of patients with COVID-19 infection. Moreover, from the perspective of simplicity and ease of calculation, we recommend the use of the S/F ratio.

Sepsis triggers and tools to support early identification in healthcare settings: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: There is no universal trigger or tool to aid sepsis diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify triggers and tools to assist the early detection of sepsis that can be readily implemented across various health care settings. METHODS: A systematic integrative review was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Relevant grey literature and subject-matter expert consultation also informed the review. Study types included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and cohort studies. All patient populations across prehospital, emergency department, and acute hospital inpatient settings, excluding the intensive care unit, were included. Sepsis triggers and tools were evaluated for efficacy in detecting sepsis and association with process measures and patient outcomes. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. RESULTS: Of the 124 included studies, most were retrospective cohort (49.2%) in adults (83.9%) within the emergency department (44.4%). The most commonly evaluated sepsis tools were qSOFA (12 studies) and SIRS (11 studies) with a median sensitivity of 28.0% versus 51.0% and a specificity of 98.0% versus 82.0%, respectively, for sepsis diagnosis. Lactate plus qSOFA (two studies) had a sensitivity between 57.0 and 65.5%, whereas the National Early Warning Score (four studies) demonstrated median sensitivity and specificity >80%, but the latter was considered difficult to implement. Amongst triggers, lactate (18 studies) at the threshold of ≥2.0 mmol/L showed higher sensitivity for predicting sepsis-related clinical deterioration than <2.0 mmol/L. Automated sepsis alerts and algorithms (35 studies) showed median sensitivity between 58.0 and 80.0% and specificity between 60.0 and 93.1%. There were limited data for other sepsis tools and maternal, paediatric, and neonatal populations. Overall methodological quality was high. CONCLUSION: No single sepsis tool or trigger is applicable across various settings and populations, but considering efficacy and ease of implementation, there is evidence to use lactate plus qSOFA for adult patients. More research is needed in maternal, paediatric, and neonatal populations.

A 2-year retrospective analysis of the prognostic value of MqSOFA compared to lactate, NEWS and qSOFA in patients with sepsis.

PURPOSE: Sepsis is a life-threating organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Being a time-dependent condition, the present study aims to compare a recently established score, i.e., modified quick SOFA (MqSOFA), with other existing tools commonly applied to predict in-hospital mortality. METHODS: All cases of sepsis and septic shock consecutively observed at St. Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy, from January 2017 to December 2018 were included in this study. Each patient was evaluated with MqSOFA, lactate assay, NEWS and qSOFA. Accurate statistical and logistic regression analyses were applied to our database. RESULTS: A total of 1001 consecutive patients with sepsis/septic shock were retrieved. Among them, 444 were excluded for incomplete details about vital parameters; thus, 556 patients were eligible for the study. Data analysis showed that MqSOFA, NEWS and lactate assay provided a better predictive ability than qSOFA in terms of in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). Aetiology-based stratification in 5 subgroups demonstrated the superiority of NEWS vs. other tools in predicting fatal outcomes (p = 0.030 respiratory, p = 0.036 urinary, p = 0.044 abdominal, p = 0.047 miscellaneous and p = 0.041 for indeterminate causes). After Bonferroni's correction, MqSOFA was superior to qSOFA over respiratory (p < 0.001) and urinary (p < 0.001) aetiologies. Age was an independent factor for negative outcomes (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MqSOFA, NEWS and lactate assay better predicted in-hospital mortality compared to qSOFA. Since sepsis needs a time-dependent assessment, an easier and non-invasive score, i.e., MqSOFA, could be used to establish patients' outcome in the emergency setting.

Development of COVID-19 severity assessment score in adults presenting with COVID-19 to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Critically-ill Covid-19 patients require extensive resources which can overburden a healthcare system already under strain due to a pandemic. A good disease severity prediction score can help allocate resources to where they are needed most. OBJECTIVES: We developed a Covid-19 Severity Assessment Score (CoSAS) to predict those patients likely to suffer from mortalities within 28 days of hospital admission. We also compared this score to Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in adults. METHODS: CoSAS includes the following 10 components: Age, gender, Clinical Frailty Score, number of comorbidities, Ferritin level, D-dimer level, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive Protein levels, systolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation. Our study was a single center study with data collected via chart review and phone calls. 309 patients were included in the study. RESULTS: CoSAS proved to be a good score to predict Covid-19 mortality with an Area under the Curve (AUC) of 0.78. It also proved better than qSOFA (AUC of 0.70). More studies are needed to externally validate CoSAS. CONCLUSION: CoSAS is an accurate score to predict Covid-19 mortality in the Pakistani population.

Bacteraemia and quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) are independent risk factors for long-term mortality in very elderly patients with suspected infection: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In older adult patients, bloodstream infections cause significant mortality. However, data on long-term prognosis in very elderly patients are scarce. This study aims to assess 1-year mortality from bacteraemia in very elderly patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in inpatients aged 80 years or older and suspected of having sepsis. Patients with (n = 336) and without (n = 336) confirmed bacteraemia were matched for age, sex, and date of culture, and their characteristics were compared. All-cause mortality and risk of death were assessed using the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). RESULTS: Compared to controls, cases showed a higher 1-year mortality (34.8% vs. 45.2%) and mortality rate (0.46 vs. 0.69 deaths per person-year). Multivariable analysis showed significant risk of 1-year mortality in patients with bacteraemia (aHR: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.67), quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score of 2 or more (aHR: 2.71, 95% CI 2.05-3.57), and age of 90 years or older (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients suspected of sepsis, bacteraemia is associated with a poor prognosis and higher long-term mortality. Other factors related to excess mortality were age over 90 years and a qSOFA score of 2 or more.

Improvement of sepsis identification through multi-year comparison of sepsis and early warning scores.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis remains a leading cause of death among inpatients. Scoring systems designed to identify inpatients with sepsis currently have limited effectiveness. This single institution, retrospective, case-control study aims to improve sepsis decision support tool performance using temporal analyses of sepsis-specific and general deterioration scoring systems. METHODS: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, National Early Warning Scores (NEWS), and Modified Early Warning Scores were calculated using four years of inpatient data. Sensitivity and specificity analyses compared performance of each score, calculated as a function of both various score cut-off values and time before sepsis diagnosis using established proxies for identifying clinical suspicion for sepsis. RESULTS: NEWS had the best sensitivity-specificity performance (AUROC 82.7) when examining various score cutoffs and time intervals during which diagnosis criteria were met. Comparison of false positives/negatives with various score thresholds showed a low rate of false positives with a NEWS of 7. Score trends in the hours leading up to sepsis criteria being met showed a marked increase for the sepsis group while for the cases there was a decrease during a comparable period. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal analyses of scores for patients coded as having sepsis provides novel insights into patterns of deterioration. The methods and results provide practical details demonstrating how general deterioration algorithms can be used to alert trained responders to potential cases of sepsis to improve sepsis recognition and treatment opportunities.

qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the discriminatory capacity of quick sequential [sepsis-related] organ failure assessment (qSOFA) versus IDSA/ATS minor criteria for predicting mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of 2116 patients with CAP was performed. Construct validity was determined using Cronbach α. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.43%. Mortality was 25.96% for patients with a qSOFA score of 2 or higher versus 3.05% for those with a qSOFA score less than 2 (odds ratio for mortality 6.57, P < 0.0001), and 13.85% for patients with at least 3 minor criteria versus 2.03% for those with 2 or fewer minor criteria (odds ratio for mortality 2.27, P < 0.0001). qSOFA had a higher correlation with mortality than minor criteria, as well as higher internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.43 versus 0.14) and diagnostic values of individual elements (larger AUROCs and higher Youden's indices). qSOFA ≥2 was less sensitive but more specific for predicting mortality than ≥3 minor criteria (qSOFA sensitivity 59.6%, specificity 88.3% and positive likelihood ratio 5.11 versus ≥3 minor criteria sensitivity 80.1%, specificity 65.8% and positive likelihood ratio 2.34). The predictive validity of qSOFA was good for mortality (AUROC = 0.868), was statistically greater than minor criteria, was equal to pneumonia severity index, and was inferior compared with CURB-65 (AUROC, 0.824, 0.902, 0.919; NRI, 0.088, -0.068, -0.103; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The qSOFA predicted mortality in CAP better than IDSA/ATS minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. qSOFA as a bedside prompt might be positioned as a proxy for minor criteria and increase the recognition and thus merit more appropriate management of CAP patients likely to fare poorly, which might have implications for more accurate clinical triage decisions.

Comparison of the PIPAS severity score tool and the QSOFA criteria for predicting in-hospital mortality of peritonitis in a tertiary hospital in Uganda: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the prognostic scoring tools for peritonitis are impractical in low resource settings because they are complex while others are quite costly. The quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score and the Physiologic Indicators for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) severity score are two strictly bedside prognostic tools but their predictive ability for mortality of peritonitis is yet to be compared. We compared the predictive ability of the qSOFA criteria and the PIPAS severity score for in-hospital mortality of peritonitis. METHOD: This was a prospective cohort study on consecutive peritonitis cases managed surgically in a tertiary hospital in Uganda between October 2020 to June 2021. PIPAS severity score and qSOFA score were assessed preoperatively for each case and all cases were then followed up intra- and postoperatively until discharge from the hospital, or up to 30 days if the in-hospital stay was prolonged; the outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. We used Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis to assess and compare the predictive abilities of these two tools for peritonitis in-hospital mortality. All tests were 2 sided (p < 0.05) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We evaluated 136 peritonitis cases. Their mean age was 34.4 years (standard deviation = 14.5). The male to female ratio was 3:1. The overall in-hospital mortality rate for peritonitis was 12.5%. The PIPAS severity score had a significantly better discriminative ability (AUC = 0.893, 95% CI 0.801-0.986) than the qSOFA score (AUC = 0.770, 95% CI 0.620-0.920) for peritonitis mortality (p = 0.0443). The best PIPAS severity cut-off score (a score of > = 2) had sensitivity and specificity of 76.5%, and 93.3% respectively, while the corresponding values for the qSOFA criteria (score > = 2), were 58.8% and 98.3% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality in this cohort of peritonitis cases was high. The PIPAS severity score tool has a superior predictive ability and higher sensitivity for peritonitis in-hospital mortality than the qSOFA score tool although the latter tool is more specific. We recommend the use of the PIPAS severity score as the initial prognostic tool for peritonitis cases in the emergency department.

Bacteremia Prediction With Prognostic Scores and a Causal Probabilistic Network - A Cohort Study of Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Physicians tend to overestimate patients' pretest probability of having bacteremia. The low yield of blood cultures and contaminants is associated with significant financial cost, as well as increased length of stay and unnecessary antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the abilities of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), the Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA), and two versions of the causal probabilistic network, SepsisFinder™ (SF) to predict bacteremia in adult emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: This cohort study included adult ED patients from a large urban, academic tertiary hospital, with blood cultures obtained within 24 h of admission between 2016 and 2017. The outcome measure was true bacteremia. NEWS, qSOFA, mSOFA, and the two versions of SF score were calculated for all patients based on the first available full set of vital signs within 2 h and laboratory values within 6 h after drawing the blood cultures. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each scoring system. RESULTS: The study included 3106 ED patients, of which 199 (6.4%) patients had true bacteremia. The AUROCs for prediction of bacteremia were: NEWS = 0.65, qSOFA = 0.60, SF I = 0.65, mSOFA = 0.71, and SF II = 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Scoring systems using only vital signs, NEWS, and SF I showed moderate abilities in predicting bacteremia, whereas qSOFA performed poorly. Scoring systems using both vital signs and laboratory values, mSOFA and especially SF II, showed good abilities in predicting bacteremia.

[SEPSIS-3.0-Is intensive care medicine ready for ICD-11?] / SEPSIS-3.0 ­ Ist die Intensivmedizin bereit für die ICD-11?

BACKGROUND: The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will come into effect in January 2022. Among other things, The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (SEPSIS­3 definition) will be implemented in it. This defines sepsis as a "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". The aim of the present secondary analysis of a survey on the topic of "sepsis-induced coagulopathy" was to evaluate whether the SEPSIS­3 definition, 4 years after its international introduction, has arrived in everyday clinical practice of intensive care units (ICU) run by anesthesiologists in Germany and thus the requirements for its use of the ICD-11 are given. METHODS: Between October 2019 and May 2020, we carried out a nationwide survey among German medical directors of ICUs. In a separate block of questions we asked about the definition of sepsis used in daily practice. In addition, we asked whether the quick-sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is used in screening for sepsis in the hospital to which to the participating ICU belongs. RESULTS: A total of 50 medical directors from anesthesiological ICUs took part in the survey. In total, the ICUs evaluated stated that they had around 14% of the high-care beds registered in Germany. The SEPSIS­3 definition is integrated into everyday clinical practice at 78.9% of the university hospitals and 84.0% of the participating teaching hospitals. In contrast, the qSOFA screening test is only used by 26.3% of the participating university hospitals, but at least 52% of the teaching hospitals and 80% of the other hospitals. CONCLUSION: The data show that both SEPSIS­3 and qSOFA have become part of everyday clinical practice in German hospitals. The cautious use of qSOFA at university hospitals with simultaneous broad acceptance of the SEPSIS­3 definition can be interpreted as an indication that the search for a suitable screening test for sepsis has not yet been completed.

Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and New Early Warning Signs Scores Estimate Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Requiring Intensive Care Unit.

Introduction: Various mortality predictive score models for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have been deliberated. We studied how sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), and new early warning signs (NEWS-2) scores estimate mortality in COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 53 patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We calculated qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 on initial admission and re-evaluated on day 5. We performed logistic regression analysis to differentiate the predictors of qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 scores on mortality. Result: qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 scores on day 5 exhibited a difference between survivors and nonsurvivors (p <0.05), also between ICU and non-ICU admission (p <0.05). The initial NEWS-2 revealed a higher AUC value than the qSOFA, APACHE II, and SOFA score in estimating mortality (0.867; 0.83; 0.822; 0.794). In ICU, APACHE II score revealed a higher AUC value than the SOFA, NEWS-2, and qSOFA score (0.853; 0.832; 0.813; 0.809). Concurrently, evaluation on day 5 showed that qSOFA AUC had higher scores than the NEWS-2, APACHE II, and SOFA (0.979; 0.965; 0.939; 0.933) in predicting mortality, while SOFA and APACHE II AUC were higher in ICU admission than NEWS-2 and qSOFA (0.968; 0.964; 0.939; 0.934). According to the cutoff score, APACHE II on day 5 revealed the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting the mortality (sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 86.7%). Conclusion: All scores signify good predictive values on COVID-19 patients mortality following the evaluation on the day 5. Nonetheless, APACHE-II appears to be the best at predicting mortality and ICU admission rate. How to cite this article: Asmarawati TP, Suryantoro SD, Rosyid AN, Marfiani E, Windradi C, Mahdi BA, et al. Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and New Early Warning Signs Scores Estimate Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Requiring Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):464-471.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.