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

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To predict severe sepsis/septic shock in ED patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients ≥18 admitted to two urban hospitals with a combined ED census of 162,000. Study cases included patients with severe sepsis/septic shock admitted via the ED. Controls comprised admissions without severe sepsis/septic shock. Using multivariate logistic regression, a prediction rule was constructed. The model's AUROC was internally validated using 1000 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: 143 study and 286 control patients were evaluated. Features predictive of severe sepsis/septic shock included: SBP ≤ 110 mm Hg, shock index/SI ≥ 0.86, abnormal mental status or GCS < 15, respirations ≥ 22, temperature ≥ 38C, assisted living facility residency, disabled immunity. Two points were assigned to SI and temperature with other features assigned one point (mnemonic: BOMBARD). BOMBARD was superior to SIRS criteria (AUROC 0.860 vs. 0.798, 0.062 difference, 95% CI 0.022-0.102) and qSOFA scores (0.860 vs. 0.742, 0.118 difference, 95% CI 0.081-0.155) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was more sensitive than SIRS ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 49%, 25.9% difference, 95% CI 18.7-33.1) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (74.8% vs. 33.6%, 41.2% difference, 95% CI 33.2-49.3) at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock. A BOMBARD score ≥ 3 was superior to SIRS ≥ 2 (76% vs. 45%, 32% difference, 95% CI 10-50) and qSOFA ≥ 2 (76% vs. 29%, 47% difference, 95% CI 25-63) at predicting sepsis mortality. CONCLUSION: BOMBARD was more accurate than SIRS and qSOFA at predicting severe sepsis/septic shock and sepsis mortality.

Predicting outcome of patients with severe urinary tract infections admitted via the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical prediction tools for making decisions in patients with severe urinary tract infections (UTIs). METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals (combined emergency department (ED) census 190,000). Study patients were admitted via the ED with acute pyelonephritis or severe sepsis-septic shock related UTI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) augmented by decision curve analysis and sensitivity of each rule for predicting mortality and ICU admission were compared. RESULTS: The AUROC of PRACTICE was greater than that of BOMBARD (0.15 difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-0.22), SIRS (0.21 difference, 95% CI = 0.14-0.28) and qSOFA (0.06 difference, 95% CI = 0-0.11) for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to BOMBARD and SIRS at all thresholds and a greater net benefit compared to qSOFA between a 1% and 10% threshold probability level for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to all other scores for predicting ICU admission across all threshold probabilities. A PRACTICE score >75 was more sensitive than a qSOFA score >1 (90% versus 54.3%, 35.7 difference, 95% CI = 24.5-46.9), SIRS criteria >1 (18.6 difference, 95% CI = 9.5-27.7), and a BOMBARD score >2 (12.9 difference, 95% CI = 5-12.9) for predicting mortality. CONCLUSION: PRACTICE was more accurate than BOMBARD, SIRS, and qSOFA for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a superior net benefit at most thresholds compared to other scores for predicting mortality and ICU admissions.