Churpek Matthew M, Snyder Ashley, Han Xuan, Sokol Sarah, Pettit Natasha, Howell Michael D, Edelson Dana P
1 Department of Medicine.
2 Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation, and.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr 1;195(7):906-911. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0854OC.
The 2016 definitions of sepsis included the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score to identify high-risk patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU).
We sought to compare qSOFA with other commonly used early warning scores.
All admitted patients who first met the criteria for suspicion of infection in the emergency department (ED) or hospital wards from November 2008 until January 2016 were included. The qSOFA, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were compared for predicting death and ICU transfer.
Of the 30,677 included patients, 1,649 (5.4%) died and 7,385 (24%) experienced the composite outcome (death or ICU transfer). Sixty percent (n = 18,523) first met the suspicion criteria in the ED. Discrimination for in-hospital mortality was highest for NEWS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.79), followed by MEWS (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.74), qSOFA (AUC, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.67-0.70), and SIRS (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.66) (P < 0.01 for all pairwise comparisons). Using the highest non-ICU score of patients, ≥2 SIRS had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 13% for the composite outcome compared with 54% and 67% for qSOFA ≥2, 59% and 70% for MEWS ≥5, and 67% and 66% for NEWS ≥8, respectively. Most patients met ≥2 SIRS criteria 17 hours before the combined outcome compared with 5 hours for ≥2 and 17 hours for ≥1 qSOFA criteria.
Commonly used early warning scores are more accurate than the qSOFA score for predicting death and ICU transfer in non-ICU patients. These results suggest that the qSOFA score should not replace general early warning scores when risk-stratifying patients with suspected infection.
2016年脓毒症的定义纳入了快速脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分,以识别重症监护病房(ICU)以外的高危患者。
我们试图将qSOFA与其他常用的早期预警评分进行比较。
纳入2008年11月至2016年1月期间在急诊科(ED)或医院病房首次符合疑似感染标准的所有入院患者。比较qSOFA、全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)、改良早期预警评分(MEWS)和国家早期预警评分(NEWS)对死亡和ICU转入的预测情况。
在纳入的30677例患者中,1649例(5.4%)死亡,7385例(24%)出现复合结局(死亡或ICU转入)。60%(n = 18523)的患者首次在ED符合疑似标准。对院内死亡率的区分能力NEWS最高(曲线下面积[AUC],0.77;95%置信区间[CI],0.76 - 0.79),其次是MEWS(AUC,0.73;95% CI,0.71 - 0.74)、qSOFA(AUC,0.69;95% CI,0.67 - 0.70)和SIRS(AUC,0.65;95% CI,0.63 - 0.66)(所有两两比较P < 0.01)。对于复合结局,使用患者的最高非ICU评分时,≥2条SIRS标准的敏感性为91%,特异性为13%,而qSOFA≥2时分别为54%和67%,MEWS≥5时分别为59%和70%,NEWS≥8时分别为67%和66%。大多数患者在复合结局出现前17小时符合≥2条SIRS标准,而符合≥2条qSOFA标准为5小时,符合≥1条qSOFA标准为17小时。
对于预测非ICU患者的死亡和ICU转入,常用的早期预警评分比qSOFA评分更准确。这些结果表明,在对疑似感染患者进行风险分层时,qSOFA评分不应取代一般的早期预警评分。