Background Few prospective studies have evaluated the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria in emergency department (ED)settings. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic accuracy of qSOFA compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting the 28-day mortality of infected patients admitted to an ED.
Methods A prospective observational cohort study of all adult (≥18 years) infected patients admitted to the ED of Slagelse Hospital, Denmark, was conducted from 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018. Patients were enrolled consecutively and data related to SIRS and qSOFA criteria were obtained from electronic triage record. Information regarding mortality was obtained from the Danish Civil Registration System. The original cut-off values of ≥2 was used to determine the prognostic accuracy of SIRS and qSOFA criteria for predicting 28-day mortality and was assessed by analyses of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratios and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results A total of 2112 patients were included in this study. A total of 175 (8.3%) patients met at least two qSOFA criteria, while 1012 (47.9%) met at least two SIRS criteria on admission. A qSOFA criteria of at least two for predicting 28-day mortality had a sensitivity of 19.5% (95% CI 13.6% to 26.5%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 91.4% to 93.7%). A SIRS criteria of at least two for predicting 28-day mortality had a sensitivity of 52.8% (95% CI 44.8% to 60.8%) and a specificity of 52.5% (95% CI 50.2% to 54.7%). The AUROC values for qSOFA and SIRS were 0.63 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.67) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.57), respectively.
Conclusion Both SIRS and qSOFA had poor sensitivity for 28-day mortality. qSOFA improved the specificity at the expense of the sensitivity resulting in slightly higher prognostic accuracy overall.
- emergency department
- infectious diseases
- clinical assessment
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors FEN conceived the idea and designed the study together with SMOBA. Data were analysed by FEN and RHS. SMOBA wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors interpreted data and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding This project received financial support from Region Zealand Health Research Foundation and Naestved, Slagelse and Ringsted Hospitals Research Fund.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (Project REG-105-2017). The Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics defined the study as a quality assurance project and therefore it was not covered by the Committee Act and without the obligation to report to the ethics committee system.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request and after the approval from the Danish Data Protection Agency.
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.