Department of Medicine and the International Respiratory and Severe Illness Center (INTERSECT), University of Washington, Seattle.
Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
JAMA. 2018 Jun 5;319(21):2202-2211. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.6229.
The quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has not been well-evaluated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
To assess the association of qSOFA with excess hospital death among patients with suspected infection in LMICs and to compare qSOFA with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective secondary analysis of 8 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial from 2003 to 2017. This study included 6569 hospitalized adults with suspected infection in emergency departments, inpatient wards, and intensive care units of 17 hospitals in 10 LMICs across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
Low (0), moderate (1), or high (≥2) qSOFA score (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) or SIRS criteria (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) within 24 hours of presentation to study hospital.
Predictive validity (measured as incremental hospital mortality beyond that predicted by baseline risk factors, as a marker of sepsis or analogous severe infectious course) of the qSOFA score (primary) and SIRS criteria (secondary).
The cohorts were diverse in enrollment criteria, demographics (median ages, 29-54 years; males range, 36%-76%), HIV prevalence (range, 2%-43%), cause of infection, and hospital mortality (range, 1%-39%). Among 6218 patients with nonmissing outcome status in the combined cohort, 643 (10%) died. Compared with a low or moderate score, a high qSOFA score was associated with increased risk of death overall (19% vs 6%; difference, 13% [95% CI, 11%-14%]; odds ratio, 3.6 [95% CI, 3.0-4.2]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 8 of 9 cohorts). Compared with a low qSOFA score, a moderate qSOFA score was also associated with increased risk of death overall (8% vs 3%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 4%-6%]; odds ratio, 2.8 [95% CI, 2.0-3.9]), but not in every cohort (P < .05 in 2 of 7 cohorts). High, vs low or moderate, SIRS criteria were associated with a smaller increase in risk of death overall (13% vs 8%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 3%-6%]; odds ratio, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.4-2.0]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 4 of 9 cohorts). qSOFA discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.68-0.72]) was superior to that of both the baseline model (AUROC, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.53-0.58; P < .001) and SIRS (AUROC, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.57-0.62]; P < .001).
When assessed among hospitalized adults with suspected infection in 9 LMIC cohorts, the qSOFA score identified infected patients at risk of death beyond that explained by baseline factors. However, the predictive validity varied among cohorts and settings, and further research is needed to better understand potential generalizability.
快速序贯(脓毒症相关)器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分在中低收入国家(LMIC)中尚未得到很好的评估。
评估 qSOFA 评分与 LMIC 中疑似感染患者的医院超额死亡之间的关联,并将 qSOFA 评分与全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准进行比较。
设计、地点和参与者:对 2003 年至 2017 年期间的 8 项队列研究和 1 项随机临床试验进行回顾性二次分析。本研究包括来自非洲撒哈拉以南地区、亚洲和美洲的 10 个 LMIC 的 17 家医院的急诊、住院病房和重症监护病房的 6569 名疑似感染住院成年人。
在出现研究医院的 24 小时内,qSOFA 评分(范围 0 [最佳] 至 3 [最差])或 SIRS 标准(范围 0 [最佳] 至 4 [最差])为低(0)、中(1)或高(≥2)。
qSOFA 评分(主要)和 SIRS 标准(次要)的预测有效性(以预测超过基线风险因素的医院死亡率来衡量,作为脓毒症或类似严重感染过程的标志物)。
队列在纳入标准、人口统计学(中位数年龄 29-54 岁;男性比例 36%-76%)、HIV 流行率(范围 2%-43%)、感染原因和医院死亡率(范围 1%-39%)方面存在差异。在联合队列中,有 6218 名患者非缺失结局状态,其中 643 名(10%)死亡。与低或中评分相比,高 qSOFA 评分与全因死亡率增加相关(19% 比 6%;差异,13% [95%CI,11%-14%];优势比,3.6 [95%CI,3.0-4.2]),且在各队列中均如此(P <.05,9 个队列中的 8 个)。与低 qSOFA 评分相比,中 qSOFA 评分也与全因死亡率增加相关(8% 比 3%;差异,5% [95%CI,4%-6%];优势比,2.8 [95%CI,2.0-3.9]),但并非在所有队列中均如此(P <.05,7 个队列中的 2 个)。高 qSOFA 评分与 SIRS 标准相比,死亡率的风险增加较小(13% 比 8%;差异,5% [95%CI,3%-6%];优势比,1.7 [95%CI,1.4-2.0]),且在各队列中均如此(P <.05,9 个队列中的 4 个)。qSOFA 区分度(接受者操作特征曲线下面积 [AUROC],0.70 [95%CI,0.68-0.72])优于基线模型(AUROC,0.56 [95%CI,0.53-0.58;P <.001)和 SIRS(AUROC,0.59 [95%CI,0.57-0.62;P <.001)。
在对来自 9 个 LMIC 队列的疑似感染住院成年人进行评估时,qSOFA 评分确定了感染患者,其死亡风险超过了基线因素的解释。然而,预测有效性在各队列和各环境之间存在差异,需要进一步研究以更好地了解潜在的可推广性。