Performance of the Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) mortality risk score in hospitalized adults with infection in Rwanda: A retrospective external validation study.

BACKGROUND: We previously derived a Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) score to better risk-stratify hospitalized patients in sub-Saharan Africa, including those with infection. Here, we aimed to externally validate the performance of the UVA score using previously collected data from patients hospitalized with acute infection in Rwanda. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data collected from adults ≥18 years with acute infection admitted to Gitwe District Hospital in Rwanda from 2016 until 2017. We calculated the UVA score from the time of admission and at 72 hours after admission. We also calculated quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and modified early warning scores (MEWS). We calculated amalgamated qSOFA scores by inserting UVA cut-offs into the qSOFA score, and modified UVA scores by removing the HIV criterion. The performance of each score determined by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: We included 573 hospitalized adult patients with acute infection of whom 40 (7%) died in-hospital. The admission AUCs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the prediction of mortality by the scores were: UVA, 0.77 (0.68-0.85); modified UVA, 0.77 (0.68-0.85); qSOFA, 0.66 (0.56-0.75), amalgamated qSOFA, 0.71 (0.61-0.80); and MEWS, 0.74 (0.64, 0.83). The positive predictive values (95% CI) of the scores at commonly used cut-offs were: UVA >4, 0.35 (0.15-0.59); modified UVA >4, 0.35 (0.15-0.59); qSOFA >1, 0.14 (0.07-0.24); amalgamated qSOFA >1, 0.44 (0.20-0.70); and MEWS >5, 0.14 (0.08-0.22). The 72 hour (N = 236) AUC (95% CI) for the prediction of mortality by UVA was 0.59 (0.43-0.74). The Chi-Square test for linear trend did not identify an association between mortality and delta UVA score at 72 hours (p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The admission UVA score and amalgamated qSOFA score had good predictive ability for mortality in adult patients admitted to hospital with acute infection in Rwanda. The UVA score could be used to assist with triage decisions and clinical interventions, for baseline risk stratification in clinical studies, and in a clinical definition of sepsis in Africa.

Causes of Maternal Mortality in Rwanda, 2017-2019.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the causes of maternal mortality at a referral hospital in Rwanda. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of 217 women with recorded maternal mortality from 2017 to 2019 was conducted among 11,308 total maternal admissions. Demographics, diagnosis, management, referring hospital source, and outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of maternal death was 30.7±7.2 years (range 16-57 years). The overall maternal mortality rate was 1.99%, with yearly rates of 2.45%, 2.53%, and 1.84% in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. A significant seasonal variation was noted. Sepsis was the most common cause of maternal death (50%), followed by hemorrhage (19%) and hypertensive disorders (15%). Causes of maternal deaths included preeclampsia (13%) and abortion (8%). Furthermore, 82% of all the deaths were referrals from smaller community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Maternal death due to sepsis remain a major cause of maternal deaths in Rwanda. Infection prevention and the early diagnosis and management of sepsis must be a priority in reducing maternal mortality.

Increasing Evidence-Based Interventions in Patients with Acute Infections in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Before-and-After Feasibility Trial in Gitwe, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a focused education program and implementation of a treatment bundle increases the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, before-and-after feasibility trial. SETTING: Emergency department of a sub-Saharan African district hospital. PATIENTS: Patients > 28 days of life admitted to the study hospital for an acute infection. INTERVENTIONS: The trial had three phases (each of four months). Interventions took place during the second (educational program followed by implementation of the treatment bundle) and third (provision of resources to implement treatment bundle) phases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at study enrollment; 24, 48, and 72 hours after hospital admission; and at discharge. A total of 1,594 patients were enrolled (pre-intervention, n = 661; intervention I, n = 531; intervention II, n = 402). The rate of early evidence-based interventions per patient during Intervention Phase I was greater than during the pre-intervention phase (74 ± 17 vs. 79 ± 15%, p < 0.001). No difference was detected when data were compared between Intervention Phases I and II (79 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 15%, p = 0.58). No differences in the incidence of blood transfusion (pre-intervention, 6%; intervention I, 7%; intervention II, 7%) or severe adverse events in the first 24 hours (allergic reactions: pre-intervention, 0.2%; intervention I, 0%; intervention II, 0%; respiratory failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 2%; acute renal failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 1%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a focused education program and implementation of an infection treatment bundle in clinical practice increased the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections (mostly malaria) admitted to a sub-Saharan African district hospital. Provision of material resources did not further increase this rate. While no safety issues were detected, this could be related to the very low disease severity of the enrolled patient population (www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02697513).

Increasing evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections in a resource-limited setting: a before-and-after feasibility trial in Gitwe, Rwanda.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a focused education program and implementation of a treatment bundle increases the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, before-and-after feasibility trial. SETTING: Emergency department of a sub-Saharan African district hospital. PATIENTS: Patients > 28 days of life admitted to the study hospital for an acute infection. INTERVENTIONS: The trial had three phases (each of 4 months). Interventions took place during the second (educational program followed by implementation of the treatment bundle) and third (provision of resources to implement treatment bundle) phases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at study enrollment; 24, 48, and 72 h after hospital admission; and at discharge. A total of 1594 patients were enrolled (pre-intervention, n = 661; intervention I, n = 531; intervention II, n = 402). The rate of early evidence-based interventions per patient during Intervention Phase I was greater than during the pre-intervention phase (74 ± 17 vs. 79 ± 15%, p < 0.001). No difference was detected when data were compared between Intervention Phases I and II (79 ± 15 vs. 80 ± 15%, p = 0.58). No differences in the incidence of blood transfusion (pre-intervention, 6%; intervention I, 7%; intervention II, 7%) or severe adverse events in the first 24 h (allergic reactions: pre-intervention, 0.2%; intervention I, 0%; intervention II, 0%; respiratory failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 2%; acute renal failure: pre-intervention, 2%; intervention I, 2%; intervention II, 1%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a focused education program and implementation of an infection treatment bundle in clinical practice increased the rate of early evidence-based interventions in patients with acute infections (mostly malaria) admitted to a sub-Saharan African district hospital. Provision of material resources did not further increase this rate. While no safety issues were detected, this could be related to the very low disease severity of the enrolled patient population ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02697513).