NEWS and qSIRS superior to qSOFA in the prediction of 30-day mortality in emergency department patients in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: We aim to compare the prognostic value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the previous Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and along with their combinations in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This single-centre prospective study recruited a convenience sample of unselected ED patients triaged as category 2 (Emergency) and 3 (Urgent). Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine the Area Under the Curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the various scores. RESULTS: Of 1253 patients recruited, overall 30-day mortality was 5.7%. The prognostic value for prediction of 30-day mortality, with AUCs for qSOFA ≥2, SIRS ≥2, NEWS ≥5, qSIRS (qSOFA + SIRS) ≥2 and NSIRS (NEWS + SIRS) ≥5 of 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.64 (95%CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.63), respectively. Using pairwise comparisons of ROC curves, NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among unselected emergency and urgent ED patients, the prognostic value for NEWS and qSIRS were greater than qSOFA, Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients. Key messages NEWS ≥5 and qSIRS ≥2 were better than qSOFA ≥2 at predicting 30-day mortality in ED patients. Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients.

Agreement between capillary and venous lactate in emergency department patients: prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Capillary blood lactate testing with handheld analysers has great advantages to reduce the time needed for clinical decisions, and for extended use in the prehospital setting. We investigated the agreement of capillary lactate measured using handheld analysers (CL-Nova and CL-Scout+ measured by Nova and Lactate Scout+ analyzers) and the reference venous level assessed using a point-of-care testing (POCT) blood gas analyser (VL-Ref). DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: A university teaching hospital emergency department in Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Patients triaged as 'urgent' (Category 3 of a 5-point scale), aged ≥18 years during 2016 were eligible. 240 patients (mean age 69.9 years) were recruited. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the agreement of the capillary blood lactate level measured by handheld lactate analyser when compared with the reference standard technique, namely venous blood samples obtained by venepuncture and analysed using the blood gas analyser. The secondary outcome measure was the difference in values of venous lactate using blood gas analysers and handheld lactate analysers. RESULTS: The results of VL-Ref ranged from 0.70 to 5.38 mmol/L (mean of 1.96 mmol/L). Regarding capillary lactate measurements, the bias (mean difference) between VL-Ref and CL-Scout+ was -0.22 with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of -2.17 to 1.73 mmol/L and the bias between VL-Ref and CL-Nova was 0.46, with LOA of -1.08 to 2.00 mmol/L. For venous lactate, results showed the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Scout+ was 0.22 with LOA being -0.46 to 0.90 mmol/L, and the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Nova was 0.83 mmol/L with LOA -0.01 to 1.66 mmol/L. CONCLUSION: Our study shows poor agreement between capillary lactate and reference values. The study does not support the clinical utility of capillary lactate POCT. However, venous lactate measured by Scout+ handheld analyser may have potential for screening patients who may need further testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02694887.

qSOFA is a Poor Predictor of Short-Term Mortality in All Patients: A Systematic Review of 410,000 Patients.

BACKGROUND: To determine the validity of the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in the prediction of outcome (in-hospital and 1-month mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospital and ICU length of stay) in adult patients with or without suspected infections where qSOFA was calculated and reported; Methods: Cochrane Central of Controlled trials, EMBASE, BIOSIS, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Nursing Database, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database were the main databases searched. All studies published until 12 April 2018 were considered. All studies except case series, case reports, and conference abstracts were considered. Studies that included patients with neutropenic fever exclusively were excluded. RESULTS: The median AUROC for in-hospital mortality (27 studies with 380,920 patients) was 0.68 (a range of 0.55 to 0.82). A meta-analysis of 377,623 subjects showed a polled AUROC of 0.68 (0.65 to 0.71); however, it also confirmed high heterogeneity among studies (I² = 98.8%, 95%CI 98.6 to 99.0). The median sensitivity and specificity for in-hospital mortality (24 studies with 118,051 patients) was 0.52 (range 0.16 to 0.98) and 0.81 (0.19 to 0.97), respectively. Median positive and negative predictive values were 0.2 (range 0.07 to 0.38) and 0.94 (0.85 to 0.99), respectively.

Does an assessment aid improve Glasgow Coma Scale scoring by helicopter rescuers in Hong Kong: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is one of the most commonly used patient assessment tools. This study aimed to determine whether an assessment aid can improve the GCS scoring accuracy by helicopter rescuers in Hong Kong. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, Air Crewman Officers (ACMOs) of Government Flying Service in Hong Kong were randomised into two groups, with and without assessment aid. The group with the assessment aid was provided a printed copy of the GCS scoring table while watching the patient simulated videos. Ten videos with GCS scores ranging from 3 to 15 were used to test the performance of total GCS (tGCS) and motor component of GCS (mGCS) scoring. RESULTS: 78% (n=25/32) of ACMOs participated in the study. By comparing the groups with and without an assessment aid, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of tGCS score (60% versus 60%; p=0.85) or mGCS score (80% versus 80%; p=0.75). Overall, mGCS has a higher accuracy than tGCS (p<0.001). The accuracy of mGCS was better than tGCS in mild and moderate brain injury scenarios. CONCLUSION: The use of an assessment aid did not improve GCS scoring by helicopter rescuers. The assessing of mGCS was more accurate than tGCS, further supporting the use of mGCS for prehospital conscious level assessment.

Improvement of blood loss volume estimation by paramedics using a pictorial nomogram: A developmental study.

INTRODUCTION: To propose and evaluate a nomogram to assist paramedics to visually estimate the external blood loss on a non-absorbent surface and to identify whether the nomogram improves visual estimation. METHODS: The study was a prospective, paired-control design (pre-training control group & post-training group), utilizing Emergency Medical Assistant (EMA) I and II trainees from the Hong Kong Fire Services Ambulance Command Training School. A nomogram (blood loss volume to area on a non-absorbent surface) was prepared to aid blood loss estimation. All participants estimated four scenarios of blood pools twice (A: 180mL; B: 470mL;C: 940mL; D: 1550mL) before and after using the nomogram. Every participant received two-minute training on how to use the nomogram correctly. The difference between the estimations and the actual volume in each scenario was calculated. The absolute percentage errors were used for direct comparison and identification of improvement between visual estimation and the use of the nomogram. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants with an average of 3-year paramedic field experience were recruited by convenience sampling. In combining all scenarios, the median of absolute percentage error of 61 participants was 43% (95%CI 38.0-50.9%) in visual estimation, while it was 23% (95%CI 17.4-27.0%) when using the nomogram. There was a significant reduction in absolute percentage error between visual estimation and the use of the nomogram (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The nomogram significantly improved the estimation of external blood loss volume.