Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Comparison of qSOFA with current emergency department tools for screening of patients with sepsis for critical illness
Free
  1. Robert M Rodriguez1,
  2. John C Greenwood2,
  3. Thomas J Nuckton3,
  4. Bryan Darger1,
  5. Frances S Shofer4,
  6. Dawn Troeger3,
  7. Soo Y Jung4,
  8. Kelly G Speich5,
  9. Joel Valencia1,
  10. J Hope Kilgannon5,
  11. Danny Fernandez1,
  12. Brigitte M Baumann5
  1. 1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3Department of Medicine, Sutter Eden Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
  4. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5Department of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Robert M Rodriguez, Department of Emergency Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA; robert.rodriguez{at}ucsf.edu

Abstract

Objective We sought to compare the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), severe sepsis criteria and lactate levels for their ability to identify ED patients with sepsis with critical illness.

Methods We conducted this multicenter retrospective cohort study at five US hospitals, enrolling all adult patients admitted to these hospitals from their EDs with infectious disease-related illnesses from 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2016. We abstracted clinical variables for SIRS, severe sepsis and qSOFA scores, using values in the first 6 hours of ED stay. Our primary outcome was critical illness, defined as one or more of the composite outcomes of death, vasopressor use or intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 72 hours of presentation. We determined diagnostic test characteristics for qSOFA scores, SIRS, severe sepsis criteria and lactate level thresholds.

Main results Of 3743 enrolled patients, 512 (13.7%) had the primary composite outcome. The qSOFA scores were ≥1, >2 and 3 in 1839 (49.1%), 626 (16.7%) and 146 (3.9%) patients, respectively; 2202 (58.8%) met SIRS criteria and 1085 (29.0%) met severe sepsis criteria. qSOFA 1 and SIRS had similarly high sensitivity [86.1% (95% CI 82.8% to 89.0%) vs 86.7% (95% CI 83.5% to 89.5%)], but qSOFA ≥1 had higher specificity [56.7% (95% CI 55.0% to 58.5%) vs 45.6% (43.9% to 47.3%); mean difference 11.1% (95% CI 8.7% to 13.6%)]. qSOFA 2 had higher specificity than severe sepsis criteria [89.1% (88.0% to 90.2%) vs 77.5% (76.0% to 78.9%); mean difference 11.6% (9.8% to 13.4%)]. qSOFA 1 had greater sensitivity than a lactate level ≥2 (mean difference 24.6% (19.2% to 29.9%)).

Conclusion For patients admitted from the ED with infectious disease diagnoses, qSOFA criteria performed as well or better than SIRS criteria, severe sepsis criteria and lactate levels in predicting critical illness.

  • qSOFA
  • sepsis
  • severe sepsis
  • critical illness
  • emergency department
  • Screening

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors RMR, JCG, TJN, BD and BMB contributed to the study design. RMR, JCG, BD, TJN, BMB and FSS were involved in the data analysis. All authors contributed to the study implementation/data acquisition, manuscript preparation and revision.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval IRBs of UCSF, University of Penssylvania and Sutter.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Commentary
    Bernard A Foëx
  • Primary survey
    Edward Carlton