Ari Moskowitz1, Parth V Patel, Anne V Grossestreuer, Maureen Chase, Nathan I Shapiro, Katherine Berg, Michael N Cocchi, Mathias J Holmberg, Michael W Donnino. 1. 1Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3Division of Critical Care, Department of Anesthesia Critical Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. 4Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Sepsis III clinical criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis rely on scores derived to predict inhospital mortality. In this study, we introduce the novel outcome of "received critical care intervention" and investigate the related predictive performance of both the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria. DESIGN: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of electronic health records. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with suspected infection who presented to the emergency department and were admitted to the hospital between January 2010 and December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were calculated, and their relationships to the receipt of critical care intervention and inhospital mortality were determined. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 24,164 patients were included of whom 6,693 (27.7%) were admitted to an ICU within 48 hours; 4,453 (66.5%) patients admitted to the ICU received a critical care intervention. Among those with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment less than 2, 13.4% received a critical care intervention and 3.5% died compared with 48.2% and 13.4%, respectively, for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was similar whether quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was used to predict receipt of critical care intervention or inhospital mortality (0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.74] vs 0.71 [0.69-0.72]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome for critical care intervention (0.69) and mortality (0.66) was lower than that for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (p < 0.001 for both outcomes). The sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for predicting critical care intervention was 38%. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department patients with suspected infection and low quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores frequently receive critical care interventions. The misclassification of these patients as "low risk," in combination with the low sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, may diminish the clinical utility of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.
OBJECTIVES: The Sepsis III clinical criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis rely on scores derived to predict inhospital mortality. In this study, we introduce the novel outcome of "received critical care intervention" and investigate the related predictive performance of both the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria. DESIGN: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of electronic health records. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with suspected infection who presented to the emergency department and were admitted to the hospital between January 2010 and December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were calculated, and their relationships to the receipt of critical care intervention and inhospital mortality were determined. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 24,164 patients were included of whom 6,693 (27.7%) were admitted to an ICU within 48 hours; 4,453 (66.5%) patients admitted to the ICU received a critical care intervention. Among those with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment less than 2, 13.4% received a critical care intervention and 3.5% died compared with 48.2% and 13.4%, respectively, for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was similar whether quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was used to predict receipt of critical care intervention or inhospital mortality (0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.74] vs 0.71 [0.69-0.72]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome for critical care intervention (0.69) and mortality (0.66) was lower than that for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (p < 0.001 for both outcomes). The sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for predicting critical care intervention was 38%. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department patients with suspected infection and low quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores frequently receive critical care interventions. The misclassification of these patients as "low risk," in combination with the low sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, may diminish the clinical utility of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Vincent X Liu; Theodore J Iwashyna; Frank M Brunkhorst; Thomas D Rea; André Scherag; Gordon Rubenfeld; Jeremy M Kahn; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Gabriel J Escobar; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Ashley Snyder; Xuan Han; Sarah Sokol; Natasha Pettit; Michael D Howell; Dana P Edelson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Foster Gesten; Hallie C Prescott; Marcus E Friedrich; Theodore J Iwashyna; Gary S Phillips; Stanley Lemeshow; Tiffany Osborn; Kathleen M Terry; Mitchell M Levy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eamon P Raith; Andrew A Udy; Michael Bailey; Steven McGloughlin; Christopher MacIsaac; Rinaldo Bellomo; David V Pilcher Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sarah E Battle; Matthew R Augustine; Christopher M Watson; P Brandon Bookstaver; Joseph Kohn; William B Owens; Larry M Baddour; Majdi N Al-Hasan Journal: Infection Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Heesu Park; Tae Gun Shin; Won Young Kim; You Hwan Jo; Yoon Jung Hwang; Sung-Hyuk Choi; Tae Ho Lim; Kap Su Han; Jonghwan Shin; Gil Joon Suh; Gu Hyun Kang; Kyung Su Kim Journal: Clin Exp Emerg Med Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Annette Ilg; Ari Moskowitz; Varun Konanki; Parth V Patel; Maureen Chase; Anne V Grossestreuer; Michael W Donnino Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Sam T Romaine; Jessica Potter; Aakash Khanijau; Rachel J McGalliard; Jemma L Wright; Gerri Sefton; Simon Leigh; Karl Edwardson; Philip Johnston; Anne Kerr; Luregn J Schlapbach; Philip Pallmann; Enitan D Carrol Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Christian Fielder Camm; Gail Hayward; Tania C N Elias; Jordan S T Bowen; Roya Hassanzadeh; Thomas Fanshawe; Sarah T Pendlebury; Daniel S Lasserson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 2.692