OBJECTIVE: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score has been recommended for triage during a mass influx of critically ill patients, but it requires laboratory measurement of 4 parameters, which may be impractical with constrained resources. We hypothesized that a modified SOFA (MSOFA) score that requires only 1 laboratory measurement would predict patient outcome as effectively as the SOFA score. METHODS: After a retrospective derivation in a prospective observational study in a 24-bed medical, surgical, and trauma intensive care unit, we determined serial SOFA and MSOFA scores on all patients admitted during the 2008 calendar year and compared the ability to predict mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 1770 patients (56% male patients) with a 30-day mortality of 10.5% were included in the study. Day 1 SOFA and MSOFA scores performed equally well at predicting mortality with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.81-.85) and 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.82-.85), respectively (P = .33 for comparison). Day 3 SOFA and MSOFA predicted mortality for the 828 patients remaining in the intensive care unit with an AUC of 0.78 and 0.79, respectively. Day 5 scores performed less well at predicting mortality. Day 1 SOFA and MSOFA predicted the need for mechanical ventilation on day 3, with an AUC of 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. Mortality for the highest category of SOFA and MSOFA score (>11 points) was 53% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MSOFA predicts mortality as well as the SOFA and is easier to implement in resource-constrained settings, but using either score as a triage tool would exclude many patients who would otherwise survive.
OBJECTIVE: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score has been recommended for triage during a mass influx of critically illpatients, but it requires laboratory measurement of 4 parameters, which may be impractical with constrained resources. We hypothesized that a modified SOFA (MSOFA) score that requires only 1 laboratory measurement would predict patient outcome as effectively as the SOFA score. METHODS: After a retrospective derivation in a prospective observational study in a 24-bed medical, surgical, and trauma intensive care unit, we determined serial SOFA and MSOFA scores on all patients admitted during the 2008 calendar year and compared the ability to predict mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 1770 patients (56% male patients) with a 30-day mortality of 10.5% were included in the study. Day 1 SOFA and MSOFA scores performed equally well at predicting mortality with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.81-.85) and 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.82-.85), respectively (P = .33 for comparison). Day 3 SOFA and MSOFA predicted mortality for the 828 patients remaining in the intensive care unit with an AUC of 0.78 and 0.79, respectively. Day 5 scores performed less well at predicting mortality. Day 1 SOFA and MSOFA predicted the need for mechanical ventilation on day 3, with an AUC of 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. Mortality for the highest category of SOFA and MSOFA score (>11 points) was 53% and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MSOFA predicts mortality as well as the SOFA and is easier to implement in resource-constrained settings, but using either score as a triage tool would exclude many patients who would otherwise survive.
Authors: Asha V Devereaux; Jeffrey R Dichter; Michael D Christian; Nancy N Dubler; Christian E Sandrock; John L Hick; Tia Powell; James A Geiling; Dennis E Amundson; Tom E Baudendistel; Dana A Braner; Mike A Klein; Kenneth A Berkowitz; J Randall Curtis; Lewis Rubinson Journal: Chest Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael D Christian; Christian E Sandrock; Asha Devereaux; James Geiling; Dennis E Amundson; Lewis Rubinson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Gerardo Chowell; Stefano M Bertozzi; M Arantxa Colchero; Hugo Lopez-Gatell; Celia Alpuche-Aranda; Mauricio Hernandez; Mark A Miller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rogelio Perez-Padilla; Daniela de la Rosa-Zamboni; Samuel Ponce de Leon; Mauricio Hernandez; Francisco Quiñones-Falconi; Edgar Bautista; Alejandra Ramirez-Venegas; Jorge Rojas-Serrano; Christopher E Ormsby; Ariel Corrales; Anjarath Higuera; Edgar Mondragon; Jose Angel Cordova-Villalobos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael D Christian; Gavin M Joynt; John L Hick; John Colvin; Marion Danis; Charles L Sprung Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; Ayumi K Shintani; Heather E Hagerman; Paul J St Jacques; Todd W Rice; Neal W Sanders; Lorraine B Ware; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michael D Christian; Cindy Hamielec; Neil M Lazar; Randy S Wax; Lauren Griffith; Margaret S Herridge; David Lee; Deborah J Cook Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Bradley M Dennis; Richard D Betzold; Daryl Patton; Herbert A Hopper; Judith Jenkins; Chris Fonnesbeck; Wonder Drake; Addison K May Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Daniel B Knox; Michael J Lanspa; Kathryn G Kuttler; Simon C Brewer; Samuel M Brown Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sara Falck-Jones; Sindhu Vangeti; Meng Yu; Ryan Falck-Jones; Alberto Cagigi; Isabella Badolati; Björn Österberg; Maximilian Julius Lautenbach; Eric Åhlberg; Ang Lin; Rico Lepzien; Inga Szurgot; Klara Lenart; Fredrika Hellgren; Holden Maecker; Jörgen Sälde; Jan Albert; Niclas Johansson; Max Bell; Karin Loré; Anna Färnert; Anna Smed-Sörensen Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Yoonsun Mo; Michael C Thomas; Abigail D Antigua; Alex M Ebied; George E Karras Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Daniel B Knox; Michael J Lanspa; Cristina M Pratt; Kathryn G Kuttler; Jason P Jones; Samuel M Brown Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Faheem W Guirgis; Michael A Puskarich; Carmen Smotherman; Sarah A Sterling; Shiva Gautam; Frederick A Moore; Alan E Jones Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Edward J Schenck; Katherine L Hoffman; Clara Oromendia; Elizabeth Sanchez; Eli J Finkelsztein; Kyung Sook Hong; Joseph Kabariti; Lisa K Torres; John S Harrington; Ilias I Siempos; Augustine M K Choi; Thomas R Campion Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-11
Authors: Jordana B Cohen; Thomas C Hanff; Vicente Corrales-Medina; Preethi William; Nicolas Renna; Nelson R Rosado-Santander; Juan E Rodriguez-Mori; Jonas Spaak; Jaime Andrade-Villanueva; Tara I Chang; Alejandro Barbagelata; Carlos E Alfonso; Eduardo Bernales-Salas; Johanna Coacalla; Carlos Augusto Castro-Callirgos; Karen E Tupayachi-Venero; Carola Medina; Renzo Valdivia; Mirko Villavicencio; Charles R Vasquez; Michael O Harhay; Jesse Chittams; Tiffany Sharkoski; James Brian Byrd; Daniel L Edmonston; Nancy Sweitzer; Julio A Chirinos Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.738