Yonghan Peng1, Wei Zhang1, Yalong Xu1, Ling Li1, Weixing Yu2, Jianwen Zeng3, Shaoxiong Ming1, Ziyu Fang1, Zeyu Wang1, Xiaofeng Gao4. 1. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China. 2. Department of Urology, Shaoxing Shangyu People's Hospital, Shaoxing, 312300, Zhejiang, China. 3. Department of Urology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan People's Hospital, Qingyuan, 511518, Guangdong, China. 4. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China. gxfdoc@sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The new clinical criteria termed SOFA and qSOFA were demonstrated to be more accurate than SIRS in screening patients at high risk of sepsis. We aim to evaluate the ability of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS to predict septic shock after PCNL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCNL were included to assess the performance of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS in predicting septic shock, the AUC of ROC curve and decision curve analysis were used, and the optimal cutoff values and their achieving time were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 431 included patients, 12 (2.7%) cases developed septic shock. Compared with non-septic shock patients, patients with septic shock were more likely to be female, have positive history of urine culture and higher urine leukocyte count, and show increased postoperative serum creatinine, PCT and decreased leukocyte. The optimal cutoff of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS was > 2, > 0 and > 1, respectively. All of the 12 patients with verified septic shock met SOFA and SIRS criteria, while only 11 cases met qSOFA criterion. SOFA had the identical highest sensitivity (100%) and greater specificity (87% vs. 81%) than SIRS. qSOFA had higher specificity (92%) than both SOFA and SIRS at the expense of lower sensitivity (92%). The AUC of SOFA (0.973) to predict septic shock was greater than that of qSOFA (0.928) and SIRS (0.935). When combined with SIRS, SOFA outperformed qSOFA for discrimination of septic shock (AUC 0.987 vs. 0.978). Decision curve analysis indicated SOFA was clearly superior to both qSOFA and SIRS with a higher net benefit and net reduction in intervention. The qSOFA achieved the best time-based predictive efficiency, with the shortest median time to meet its cutoff, followed by SOFA and SIRS. CONCLUSION: The performance of SOFA in predicting septic shock after PCNL was slightly greater than qSOFA and SIRS. The comprehensive application of various criteria is recommended to assist early detection of septic shock following PCNL.
OBJECTIVE: The new clinical criteria termed SOFA and qSOFA were demonstrated to be more accurate than SIRS in screening patients at high risk of sepsis. We aim to evaluate the ability of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS to predict septic shock after PCNL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCNL were included to assess the performance of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS in predicting septic shock, the AUC of ROC curve and decision curve analysis were used, and the optimal cutoff values and their achieving time were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 431 included patients, 12 (2.7%) cases developed septic shock. Compared with non-septic shockpatients, patients with septic shock were more likely to be female, have positive history of urine culture and higher urine leukocyte count, and show increased postoperative serum creatinine, PCT and decreased leukocyte. The optimal cutoff of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS was > 2, > 0 and > 1, respectively. All of the 12 patients with verified septic shock met SOFA and SIRS criteria, while only 11 cases met qSOFA criterion. SOFA had the identical highest sensitivity (100%) and greater specificity (87% vs. 81%) than SIRS. qSOFA had higher specificity (92%) than both SOFA and SIRS at the expense of lower sensitivity (92%). The AUC of SOFA (0.973) to predict septic shock was greater than that of qSOFA (0.928) and SIRS (0.935). When combined with SIRS, SOFA outperformed qSOFA for discrimination of septic shock (AUC 0.987 vs. 0.978). Decision curve analysis indicated SOFA was clearly superior to both qSOFA and SIRS with a higher net benefit and net reduction in intervention. The qSOFA achieved the best time-based predictive efficiency, with the shortest median time to meet its cutoff, followed by SOFA and SIRS. CONCLUSION: The performance of SOFA in predicting septic shock after PCNL was slightly greater than qSOFA and SIRS. The comprehensive application of various criteria is recommended to assist early detection of septic shock following PCNL.
Authors: Gaston Labate; Pranjal Modi; Anthony Timoney; Luigi Cormio; Xiaochun Zhang; Michael Louie; Magnus Grabe; Jean Rosette On Behalf Of The Croes Pcnl Study Group Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Frank J Zadravecz; Christopher Winslow; Michael D Howell; Dana P Edelson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
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: Manu Shankar-Hari; Gary S Phillips; Mitchell L Levy; Christopher W Seymour; Vincent X Liu; Clifford S Deutschman; Derek C Angus; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Mervyn Singer Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Åsa Askim; Florentin Moser; Lise T Gustad; Helga Stene; Maren Gundersen; Bjørn Olav Åsvold; Jostein Dale; Lars Petter Bjørnsen; Jan Kristian Damås; Erik Solligård Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 2.953