Daniel R Kievlan1,2, Li A Zhang3, Chung-Chou H Chang4, Derek C Angus1,2, Christopher W Seymour1,2,5. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012. PATIENTS: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.
OBJECTIVES: Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012. PATIENTS: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Vincent; R Moreno; J Takala; S Willatts; A De Mendonça; H Bruining; C K Reinhart; P M Suter; L G Thijs Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 17.440
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: 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: 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: 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: Nicholas Levin; Devin Horton; Matthew Sanford; Benjamin Horne; Mahima Saseendran; Kencee Graves; Michael White; Joseph E Tonna Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Kirby Tong-Minh; Yuri van der Does; Joost van Rosmalen; Christian Ramakers; Diederik Gommers; Eric van Gorp; Dimitris Rizopoulos; Henrik Endeman Journal: Biomark Insights Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Signe Trille Sørensen; S M Osama Bin Abdullah; Rune Husås Sørensen; Ram Dessau; Niels Høiby; Finn Erland Nielsen Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2021-07-23
Authors: Thomas Schmoch; Michael Bernhard; Andrea Becker-Pennrich; Ludwig Christian Hinske; Josef Briegel; Patrick Möhnle; Thorsten Brenner; Markus A Weigand Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 1.041