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.

False-negative real-time polymerase chain reaction tests in COVID-19 patients: an epidemiological analysis of 302 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who arrive at the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19, who test negative at the first real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), represent a clinical challenge. This study aimed to evaluate if the clinical manifestation at presentation, the laboratory and imaging results, and the prognosis of COVID-19 differ in patients who tested negative at the first RT-PCR compared with those who tested positive and also to evaluate if comorbid conditions patient-related or the period of arrival are associated with negative testing. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients who accessed the ED from March 1 to May 15, 2020. METHODS: We compared clinical variables, comorbid conditions, and clinical outcomes in the two groups by univariate analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients who tested negative at the first RT-PCR showed a higher prevalence of cardiopathy, immunosuppression, and diabetes, as well as a higher leukocyte and lower lymphocyte counts compared with patients who tested positive. A bilateral interstitial syndrome and a typical pattern at computed tomography scan were prevalent in the test-negative group. Test-negative patients were more likely to be admitted to the hospital but less likely to need admission in a high level of care ward. The false-negative rate increased from March to May. CONCLUSION: False-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 patients present a similar spectrum of symptoms compared with positive cohort, but more comorbidities. Imaging helps to identify them. True positives had a higher risk of serious complications.

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.