Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study. RESULTS: Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00-1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h. CONCLUSIONS: qSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions.

Critical care bed capacity in Asian countries and regions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the importance of critical care. The aim of the current study was to compare the number of adult critical care beds in relation to population size in Asian countries and regions before (2017) and during (2022) the pandemic. Methods: This observational study collected data closest to 2022 on critical care beds (intensive care units and intermediate care units) in 12 middle-income and 7 high-income economies (using the 2022-2023 World Bank classification), through a mix of methods including government sources, national critical care societies, personal contacts, and data extrapolation. Data were compared with a prior study from 2017 of the same countries and regions. Findings: The cumulative number of critical care beds per 100,000 population increased from 3.0 in 2017 to 9.4 in 2022 (p = 0.003). The median figure for middle-income economies increased from 2.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.7-7.8) to 6.6 (IQR 2.2-13.3), and that for high-income economies increased from 11.4 (IQR 7.3-22.8) to 13.9 (IQR 10.7-21.7). Only 3 countries did not see a rise in bed capacity. Where data were available in 2022, 10.9% of critical care beds were in single rooms (median 5.0% in middle-income and 20.3% in high-income economies), and 5.3% had negative pressure (median 0.7% in middle-income and 18.5% in high-income economies). Interpretation: Critical care bed capacity in the studied Asian countries and regions increased close to three-fold from 2017 to 2022. Much of this increase was attributed to middle-income economies, but substantial heterogeneity exists. Funding: None.