OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic performance of the predisposition, infection, response and organ failure (PIRO) score with the traditional sepsis category and clinical judgement in high-risk and low-risk Dutch emergency department (ED) sepsis populations. METHODS: Prospective study in ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (high-risk cohort), or suspected infection (low-risk cohort). OUTCOME: 28-day mortality. Prognostic performance of PIRO, sepsis category and clinical judgement were assessed with Cox regression analysis with correction for quality of ED treatment and disposition. Illness severity measures were divided into four groups with the lowest illness severity as reference category; discrimination was quantified by receiver operator characteristics with area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Death occurred in 72/323 (22%, high-risk) and 23/385 (6%, low-risk) patients. For the low-risk cohort, corrected HRs (95% CI) for categories 2-4 were 2.0 (0.4 to 11.9), 4.3 (0.8 to 24.7) and 17.8 (2.8 to 113.0: PIRO); 0.5 (0.05 to 5.4), 2.1 (0.2 to 21.8) and 7.5 (0.6 to 92.9: sepsis category). Patients discharged home (category 1) all survived. HRs were 4.5 (0.5 to 39.1) and 13.6 (4.3 to 43.5) for clinical judgement categories 3-4. Prognostic performance was consistently better in the low-risk than in the high-risk cohort. For PIRO AUCs were 0.68 (0.61 to 0.74; high-risk) and 0.83 (0.75 to 0.91; low-risk); for sepsis category AUCs were 0.50 (0.42 to 0.57; high-risk) and 0.73 (0.61 to 0.86; low-risk); for clinical judgement AUCs were 0.69 (0.60 to 0.78; high-risk) and 0.84 (0.73 to 0.96; low-risk). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and discriminative performance of the PIRO score and clinical judgement are similar, but better than the sepsis category. Prognostic performance of illness severity scores is less in high-risk cohorts, while in high-risk populations a risk stratification tool would be most useful.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the prognostic performance of the predisposition, infection, response and organ failure (PIRO) score with the traditional sepsis category and clinical judgement in high-risk and low-risk Dutch emergency department (ED) sepsis populations. METHODS: Prospective study in ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (high-risk cohort), or suspected infection (low-risk cohort). OUTCOME: 28-day mortality. Prognostic performance of PIRO, sepsis category and clinical judgement were assessed with Cox regression analysis with correction for quality of ED treatment and disposition. Illness severity measures were divided into four groups with the lowest illness severity as reference category; discrimination was quantified by receiver operator characteristics with area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Death occurred in 72/323 (22%, high-risk) and 23/385 (6%, low-risk) patients. For the low-risk cohort, corrected HRs (95% CI) for categories 2-4 were 2.0 (0.4 to 11.9), 4.3 (0.8 to 24.7) and 17.8 (2.8 to 113.0: PIRO); 0.5 (0.05 to 5.4), 2.1 (0.2 to 21.8) and 7.5 (0.6 to 92.9: sepsis category). Patients discharged home (category 1) all survived. HRs were 4.5 (0.5 to 39.1) and 13.6 (4.3 to 43.5) for clinical judgement categories 3-4. Prognostic performance was consistently better in the low-risk than in the high-risk cohort. For PIRO AUCs were 0.68 (0.61 to 0.74; high-risk) and 0.83 (0.75 to 0.91; low-risk); for sepsis category AUCs were 0.50 (0.42 to 0.57; high-risk) and 0.73 (0.61 to 0.86; low-risk); for clinical judgement AUCs were 0.69 (0.60 to 0.78; high-risk) and 0.84 (0.73 to 0.96; low-risk). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and discriminative performance of the PIRO score and clinical judgement are similar, but better than the sepsis category. Prognostic performance of illness severity scores is less in high-risk cohorts, while in high-risk populations a risk stratification tool would be most useful.
Authors: Zhongheng Zhang; Nathan J Smischney; Haibo Zhang; Sven Van Poucke; Panagiotis Tsirigotis; Jordi Rello; Patrick M Honore; Win Sen Kuan; Juliet June Ray; Jiancang Zhou; You Shang; Yuetian Yu; Christian Jung; Chiara Robba; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Pietro Caironi; David Grimaldi; Stefan Hofer; George Dimopoulos; Marc Leone; Sang-Bum Hong; Mabrouk Bahloul; Laurent Argaud; Won Young Kim; Herbert D Spapen; Jose Rodolfo Rocco Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Bas de Groot; Annemieke Ansems; Daan H Gerling; Douwe Rijpsma; Paul van Amstel; Durk Linzel; Piet J Kostense; Marianne Jonker; Evert de Jonge Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Mats Warmerdam; Frank Stolwijk; Anjelica Boogert; Meera Sharma; Lisa Tetteroo; Jacinta Lucke; Simon Mooijaart; Annemieke Ansems; Laura Esteve Cuevas; Douwe Rijpsma; Bas de Groot Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vincent M Quinten; Matijs van Meurs; Anna E Wolffensperger; Jan C Ter Maaten; Jack J M Ligtenberg Journal: Eur J Emerg Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.799
Authors: Robert Słotwiński; Agnieszka Sarnecka; Aleksandra Dąbrowska; Katarzyna Kosałka; Ewelina Wachowska; Barbara J Bałan; Marta Jankowska; Teresa Korta; Grzegorz Niewiński; Andrzej Kański; Małgorzata Mikaszewska-Sokolewicz; Mohammad Omidi; Krystyna Majewska; Sylwia M Słotwińska Journal: Cent Eur J Immunol Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.085
Authors: Bas de Groot; Frank Stolwijk; Mats Warmerdam; Jacinta A Lucke; Gurpreet K Singh; Mo Abbas; Simon P Mooijaart; Annemieke Ansems; Laura Esteve Cuevas; Douwe Rijpsma Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.953