Faheem W Guirgis1, Michael A Puskarich2, Carmen Smotherman3, Sarah A Sterling2, Shiva Gautam4, Frederick A Moore5, Alan E Jones2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, USA. 3. Center for Health Equity and Quality Research, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sepsis-3 recommends using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score followed by SOFA score for sepsis evaluation. The SOFA is complex and unfamiliar to most emergency physicians, while qSOFA is insensitive for sepsis screening and may result in missed cases of sepsis. The objective of this study was to devise an easy-to-use simple SOFA score for use in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Retrospective study of ED patients with sepsis with in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome. A simple SOFA score was derived and validated and compared with SOFA and qSOFA. RESULTS: A total of 3297 patients with sepsis were included, and in-hospital mortality was 10.1%. Simple SOFA had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 44% in the derivation set and 93% and 44% in the validation set for in-hospital mortality, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA was 38% and 86% and for SOFA was 90% and 50%, respectively. There were 2760 (84%) of 3297 qSOFA-negative (<2) patients. In this group, simple SOFA had a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 48% in the derivation set and 91% and 48% in the validation set, respectively. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was 86% sensitive and 57% specific in qSOFA-negative patients. For all encounters, the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUROC) were 0.82 for SOFA, 0.78 (derivation) and 0.82 (validation) for simple SOFA, and 0.68 for qSOFA. In qSOFA-negative patients, the AUROCs were 0.80 for SOFA and 0.76 (derivation) and 0.82 (validation) for simple SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: Simple SOFA demonstrates similar predictive ability for in-hospital mortality from sepsis compared to SOFA. External validation of these findings is indicated.
OBJECTIVES: Sepsis-3 recommends using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score followed by SOFA score for sepsis evaluation. The SOFA is complex and unfamiliar to most emergency physicians, while qSOFA is insensitive for sepsis screening and may result in missed cases of sepsis. The objective of this study was to devise an easy-to-use simple SOFA score for use in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Retrospective study of ED patients with sepsis with in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome. A simple SOFA score was derived and validated and compared with SOFA and qSOFA. RESULTS: A total of 3297 patients with sepsis were included, and in-hospital mortality was 10.1%. Simple SOFA had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 44% in the derivation set and 93% and 44% in the validation set for in-hospital mortality, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA was 38% and 86% and for SOFA was 90% and 50%, respectively. There were 2760 (84%) of 3297 qSOFA-negative (<2) patients. In this group, simple SOFA had a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 48% in the derivation set and 91% and 48% in the validation set, respectively. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was 86% sensitive and 57% specific in qSOFA-negative patients. For all encounters, the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUROC) were 0.82 for SOFA, 0.78 (derivation) and 0.82 (validation) for simple SOFA, and 0.68 for qSOFA. In qSOFA-negative patients, the AUROCs were 0.80 for SOFA and 0.76 (derivation) and 0.82 (validation) for simple SOFA. CONCLUSIONS: Simple SOFA demonstrates similar predictive ability for in-hospital mortality from sepsis compared to SOFA. External validation of these findings is indicated.
Entities:
Keywords:
infection; organ dysfunction; sepsis; septic shock
Authors: Lori F Gentile; Alex G Cuenca; Philip A Efron; Darwin Ang; Azra Bihorac; Bruce A McKinley; Lyle L Moldawer; Frederick A Moore Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: J L Vincent; A de Mendonça; F Cantraine; R Moreno; J Takala; P M Suter; C L Sprung; F Colardyn; S Blecher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ryan C Arnold; Robert Sherwin; Nathan I Shapiro; Jennifer L O'Connor; Lindsey Glaspey; Sam Singh; Patrick Medado; Stephen Trzeciak; Alan E Jones Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Linda L Chlan; Craig R Weinert; Mary Fran Tracy; Debra J Skaar; Ognjen Gajic; Jessica Ask; Jay Mandrekar Journal: Trials Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Tushar Gupta; Michael A Puskarich; Elizabeth DeVos; Adnan Javed; Carmen Smotherman; Sarah A Sterling; Henry E Wang; Frederick A Moore; Alan E Jones; Faheem W Guirgis Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Kate Honeyford; Graham S Cooke; Anne Kinderlerer; Elizabeth Williamson; Mark Gilchrist; Alison Holmes; Ben Glampson; Abdulrahim Mulla; Ceire Costelloe Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Peter Bank Pedersen; Daniel Pilsgaard Henriksen; Mikkel Brabrand; Annmarie Touborg Lassen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 2.692