Enhanced bedside mortality prediction combining point-of-care lactate and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in patients hospitalised with suspected infection in southeast Asia: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Simple, bedside prediction of infection-related mortality in low-resource settings is crucial for triage and resource-utilisation decisions. We aimed to evaluate mortality prediction by combining point-of-care venous lactate with the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in adult patients admitted to hospital with suspected infection in southeast Asia. METHODS: We performed a cohort study by prospectively enrolling patients aged 18 years or older who had been admitted to hospital within the previous 24 h for suspected infection (with at least three documented systemic manifestations of infection according to the 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign) at Sunpasitthiprasong Hospital in Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand (derivation cohort). Venous lactate concentration was determined by a point-of-care device and multiple scores were developed. We then evaluated candidate 28-day mortality prediction models combining qSOFA and the lactate scores. A final model was compared with the qSOFA score, a lactate score, and a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for mortality discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Mortality discrimination of the qSOFA-lactate score was then verified in an external, prospectively enrolled, multinational cohort in southeast Asia. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013, and Jan 26, 2017, 5001 patients were enrolled in the derivation cohort; 4980 had point-of-care lactate data available and were eligible for analysis, and 816 died within 28 days of enrolment. The discrimination for 28-day mortality prediction of a qSOFA-lactate score combining the qSOFA score and a lactate score was superior to that of the qSOFA score alone (AUROC 0·78 [95% CI 0·76-0·80] vs 0·68 [0·67-0·70]; p<0·0001) and similar to a modified SOFA score (0·77 [0·75-0·78]; p=0·088). A lactate score alone had superior discrimination compared with the qSOFA score (AUROC 0·76 [95% CI 0·74-0·78]; p<0·0001). 815 patients were enrolled in the external validation cohort and 792 had point-of-care lactate data and were included in the analysis; the qSOFA-lactate score (AUROC 0·77 [95% CI 0·73-0·82]) showed significantly improved 28-day mortality discrimination compared with the qSOFA score alone (0·69 [0·63-0·74]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In southeast Asia, rapid, bedside assessments based on point-of-care lactate concentration combined with the qSOFA score can identify patients at risk of sepsis-related mortality with greater accuracy than the qSOFA score alone, and with similar accuracy to a modified SOFA score. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust.

A broader look at medical futility.

This paper attempts to provide a descriptive theoretical overview of the medical futility debate. I will first argue that quantitative data cannot alone resolve the medical futility debate. I will then examine two aspects of medical futility, which I call the prospective and immediate, respectively. The first involves making prospective factual and value judgments about the efficacy of proposed medical interventions, while the latter involves making value judgments about ongoing medical conditions where the clinical data are clear. At stake is the nature and scope of individual rights. Thus, I maintain there is an undeveloped aspect to the medical futility debate and, briefly, analyze two political perspectives which give rise to different understandings of medical futility. The view that I will defend is that only a system with defined collective goals can accommodate a normative concept of medical futility. These larger questions are the value options which if unaddressed, may be settled by default of economic grounds.

Regaining the initiative. Forging a new model of the patient-physician relationship.

The patient-physician relationship has undergone major and increasingly rapid changes in the past 40 years. It has moved from a relationship based on physician paternalism, through one of patient autonomy, to one where the patient and the physician's authority and control over the patient's care are facing significant threats from outside sources. In this article, we examine the historical and social forces that have contributed to these changes and the effects these forces have had on the traditional models of the patient-physician relationship. We present arguments to support our proposal for a patient-physician alliance in the community based on mutual education of physician and patient about health and illness, values and persons, social responsibility, beneficence, trust, and a degree of paternalism. We believe such an alliance offers the best hope for patients and their physicians to regain the initiative in guiding the evolution of health care in a way that preserves the essentials of the therapeutic relationship.