Olcay Yeşil1, Murat Pekdemir1, İbrahim Ulaş Özturan2, Nurettin Özgür Doğan1, Elif Yaka1, Serkan Yılmaz1, Adnan Karadaş1, Seda Güney Pınar1. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kabaoğlu, Baki Komsuoğlu bulvarı No:515, Umuttepe, 41001, İzmit, Kocaeli, Turkey. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kabaoğlu, Baki Komsuoğlu bulvarı No:515, Umuttepe, 41001, İzmit, Kocaeli, Turkey. ozturan.iu@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk for adverse outcomes in the emergency department (ED) remains controversial due to their low predictive performance and lack of supporting evidence. This study aimed to determine the predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, and the qSOFA + SIRS combinations for adverse outcomes. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to the ED with suspected infection were prospectively included. qSOFA scores ≥ 2, SIRS score ≥ 2 were defined as risk-positive for adverse outcome. Furthermore, combination‑1, which was defined as either qSOFA or SIRS positivity, and combination‑2, which was defined as both qSOFA and SIRS positivity, were also considered as risk-positive for adverse outcome. The predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, combination‑1, and combination‑2 for a composite adverse outcome within 30 days, including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and non-ICU hospitalization, were determined. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included in the analysis. The composite outcome occurred in 211 (60.3%) patients within 30 days: mortality in 84 (24%), ICU admission in 78 (22.3%), and non-ICU hospitalization in 154 (44%). The sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were determined in predicting composite outcome as 0.34 and 0.93 for qSOFA, 0.81 and 0.31 for SIRS, 0.84 and 0.28 for combination‑1, and 0.31 and 0.96 for combination‑2. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that qSOFA and combination‑2 could be a useful tool for confirming patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. Although SIRS and combination‑1 could be helpful for excluding high-risk patients, the requirement of white blood cell counts limits their utilization for screening.
BACKGROUND: The use of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk for adverse outcomes in the emergency department (ED) remains controversial due to their low predictive performance and lack of supporting evidence. This study aimed to determine the predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, and the qSOFA + SIRS combinations for adverse outcomes. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to the ED with suspected infection were prospectively included. qSOFA scores ≥ 2, SIRS score ≥ 2 were defined as risk-positive for adverse outcome. Furthermore, combination‑1, which was defined as either qSOFA or SIRS positivity, and combination‑2, which was defined as both qSOFA and SIRS positivity, were also considered as risk-positive for adverse outcome. The predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, combination‑1, and combination‑2 for a composite adverse outcome within 30 days, including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and non-ICU hospitalization, were determined. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included in the analysis. The composite outcome occurred in 211 (60.3%) patients within 30 days: mortality in 84 (24%), ICU admission in 78 (22.3%), and non-ICU hospitalization in 154 (44%). The sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were determined in predicting composite outcome as 0.34 and 0.93 for qSOFA, 0.81 and 0.31 for SIRS, 0.84 and 0.28 for combination‑1, and 0.31 and 0.96 for combination‑2. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that qSOFA and combination‑2 could be a useful tool for confirming patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. Although SIRS and combination‑1 could be helpful for excluding high-risk patients, the requirement of white blood cell counts limits their utilization for screening.