Validation of the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score for the prognostic stratification of patients with sepsis in the Emergency Department / Validación del sistema PIRO (predisposición, infección, respuesta, fallo orgánico) para la estratificación del pronóstico en pacientes con sepsis en el servicio de urgencias

Objective: There are many different methods for computing the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score. We compared three PIRO methods (PIRO1 (Howell), PIRO2 (Rubulotta) and PIRO3 (Rathour)) for the stratification of mortality and high level of care admission in septic patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) of an Italian Hospital. Design, setting and participants We prospectively collected clinical data of 470 patients admitted due to infection in the ED to compute PIRO according to three different methods. We tested PIRO variables for the prediction of mortality in the univariate analysis. Calculation and comparison were made of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the three PIRO methods, SOFA and qSOFA. Results Most of the variables included in PIRO were related to mortality in the univariate analysis. Increased PIRO scores were related to higher mortality. In relation to mortality, PIRO 1 performed better than PIRO2 at 30 d ((AUC 0.77 (0.716–0.824) vs. AUC 0.699 (0.64–0.758) (p=0.03) and similarly at 60 d (AUC 0.767 (0.715–0.819) vs AUC 0.709 (0.656–0.763)(p=0.55)); PIRO1 performed similarly to PIRO3 (AUC 0.765 (0.71–0.82) at 30 d, AUC 0.754 (0.701–0.806) at 60 d, p=ns). Both PIRO1 and PIRO3 were as good as SOFA referred to mortality (AUC 0.758 (0.699, 0.816) at 30 d vs. AUC 0.738 (0.681, 0.795) at 60 d; p=ns). For high level of care admission, PIRO proved inferior to SOFA. Conclusions We support the use of PIRO1, which combines ease of use and the best performance referred to mortality over the short term. PIRO2 proved to be less accurate and more complex to use, suffering from missing microbiological data in the ED setting. (AU)

Objetivo: Existen muchos métodos diferentes para calcular la escala PIRO (predisposición, infección respuesta, fallo orgánico). Comparamos 3 métodos (PIRO1 [Howell], PIRO2 [Rubolotta] y PIRO3 [Rathour]) para estratificar la mortalidad y el ingreso con alto nivel de cuidados en pacientes con sepsis atendidos en el servicio de urgencias (SU) de un hospital italiano. Diseño, entorno y participantes Recopilamos datos clínicos prospectivos de 470 pacientes que llegaban con una infección al SU, con el fin de calcular la puntuación PIRO, de acuerdo con 3 métodos diferentes. Evaluamos las variables PIRO para la predicción de la mortalidad en un análisis monovariable. Calculamos y comparamos el área bajo la curva (AUC) característica de operación del receptor (ROC) de los 3 métodos PIRO, SOFA y qSOFA. Resultados La mayoría de las variables incluidas en las puntuaciones PIRO estaban relacionadas con la mortalidad en un análisis de una sola variable. El aumento de la puntuación PIRO se relacionó con una mortalidad más elevada. En cuanto a la mortalidad, PIRO1 presentó un rendimiento mejor que PIRO2 a los 30 días (AUC 0,77 [0,716-0,824] frente a AUC 0,699 [0,64-0,758]; p=0,03) y similares a los 60 días (AUC 0,767 [0,715-0,819] frente a AUC 0,709 [0,656-0,763]; p=0,55); PIRO1 presentó un rendimiento similar al de PIRO3 (AUC 0,765 [0,71-0,82] a los 30 días, AUC 0,754 [0,701-0,806] a los 60 días; p=NS). Tanto PIRO1 como PIRO3 presentaron un rendimiento similar al de SOFA para la mortalidad (AUC 0,758 [0,699-0,816) al cabo de 30 días y AUC 0,738 [0,681-0,795] al cabo de 60 días; p=NS). En cuanto al ingreso con alto nivel de cuidados, las puntuaciones PIRO resultaron ser inferiores a SOFA. Conclusiones Apoyamos el uso de la puntuación PIRO1, que resulta fácil de usar, y presenta el mejor rendimiento en cuanto a la mortalidad a largo plazo. PIRO2 resultó ser menos precisa y más compleja de usar ... (AU)

Validation of the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score for the prognostic stratification of patients with sepsis in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: There are many different methods for computing the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score. We compared three PIRO methods (PIRO1 (Howell), PIRO2 (Rubulotta) and PIRO3 (Rathour)) for the stratification of mortality and high level of care admission in septic patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) of an Italian Hospital. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We prospectively collected clinical data of 470 patients admitted due to infection in the ED to compute PIRO according to three different methods. We tested PIRO variables for the prediction of mortality in the univariate analysis. Calculation and comparison were made of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the three PIRO methods, SOFA and qSOFA. RESULTS: Most of the variables included in PIRO were related to mortality in the univariate analysis. Increased PIRO scores were related to higher mortality. In relation to mortality, PIRO 1 performed better than PIRO2 at 30 d ((AUC 0.77 (0.716-0.824) vs. AUC 0.699 (0.64-0.758) (p=0.03) and similarly at 60 d (AUC 0.767 (0.715-0.819) vs AUC 0.709 (0.656-0.763)(p=0.55)); PIRO1 performed similarly to PIRO3 (AUC 0.765 (0.71-0.82) at 30 d, AUC 0.754 (0.701-0.806) at 60 d, p=ns). Both PIRO1 and PIRO3 were as good as SOFA referred to mortality (AUC 0.758 (0.699, 0.816) at 30 d vs. AUC 0.738 (0.681, 0.795) at 60 d; p=ns). For high level of care admission, PIRO proved inferior to SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: We support the use of PIRO1, which combines ease of use and the best performance referred to mortality over the short term. PIRO2 proved to be less accurate and more complex to use, suffering from missing microbiological data in the ED setting.

Validation of the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score for the prognostic stratification of patients with sepsis in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: There are many different methods for computing the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score. We compared three PIRO methods (PIRO1 (Howell), PIRO2 (Rubulotta) and PIRO3 (Rathour)) for the stratification of mortality and high level of care admission in septic patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) of an Italian Hospital. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We prospectively collected clinical data of 470 patients admitted due to infection in the ED to compute PIRO according to three different methods. We tested PIRO variables for the prediction of mortality in the univariate analysis. Calculation and comparison were made of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the three PIRO methods, SOFA and qSOFA. RESULTS: Most of the variables included in PIRO were related to mortality in the univariate analysis. Increased PIRO scores were related to higher mortality. In relation to mortality, PIRO 1 performed better than PIRO2 at 30 d ((AUC 0.77 (0.716-0.824) vs. AUC 0.699 (0.64-0.758) (p=0.03) and similarly at 60 d (AUC 0.767 (0.715-0.819) vs AUC 0.709 (0.656-0.763)(p=0.55)); PIRO1 performed similarly to PIRO3 (AUC 0.765 (0.71-0.82) at 30 d, AUC 0.754 (0.701-0.806) at 60 d, p=ns). Both PIRO1 and PIRO3 were as good as SOFA referred to mortality (AUC 0.758 (0.699, 0.816) at 30 d vs. AUC 0.738 (0.681, 0.795) at 60 d; p=ns). For high level of care admission, PIRO proved inferior to SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: We support the use of PIRO1, which combines ease of use and the best performance referred to mortality over the short term. PIRO2 proved to be less accurate and more complex to use, suffering from missing microbiological data in the ED setting.