Jonghoo Lee1, Jae-Uk Song2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea. Electronic address: lovlet@paran.com. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to elucidate the performance of a Quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment-65 (qSOFA-65) score in recognizing sepsis and to compare the qSOFA-65 score to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and qSOFA scores. METHODS: We performed a matched case-control study using propensity score matching. The number of patients meeting qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were calculated between the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. We compared the diagnostic performance of the three scoring systems in predicting sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 2441 patients were included in the study. In propensity matched cohorts, the percentage of patients who met qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were 46.7%, 14.3%, and 55.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity scores for the qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria for sepsis were 0.66 and 0.73, 0.28 and 0.97, and 0.66 and 0.55, respectively. The AUC value of qSOFA-65 positive criteria in predicting sepsis was significantly higher than that of qSOFA and SIRS positive criteria (adjusted AUC 0.688 vs. 0.630 vs. 0.596, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that qSOFA-65 was more likely to identify patients with sepsis on the initial ED visit relative to qSOFA or SIRS. This may have quality improvement implications in predicting sepsis.
PURPOSE: We sought to elucidate the performance of a Quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment-65 (qSOFA-65) score in recognizing sepsis and to compare the qSOFA-65 score to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and qSOFA scores. METHODS: We performed a matched case-control study using propensity score matching. The number of patients meeting qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were calculated between the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. We compared the diagnostic performance of the three scoring systems in predicting sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 2441 patients were included in the study. In propensity matched cohorts, the percentage of patients who met qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were 46.7%, 14.3%, and 55.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity scores for the qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria for sepsis were 0.66 and 0.73, 0.28 and 0.97, and 0.66 and 0.55, respectively. The AUC value of qSOFA-65 positive criteria in predicting sepsis was significantly higher than that of qSOFA and SIRS positive criteria (adjusted AUC 0.688 vs. 0.630 vs. 0.596, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found that qSOFA-65 was more likely to identify patients with sepsis on the initial ED visit relative to qSOFA or SIRS. This may have quality improvement implications in predicting sepsis.