Centre for Healthcare Modelling & Informatics, School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research and Education (CoPMRE), Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of Bournemouth, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;46(12):1923-1933. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003359.
The Sepsis-3 task force recommended the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment score for identifying patients with suspected infection who are at greater risk of poor outcomes, but many hospitals already use the National Early Warning Score to identify high-risk patients, irrespective of diagnosis. We sought to compare the performance of quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment and National Early Warning Score in hospitalized, non-ICU patients with and without an infection.
Retrospective cohort study.
Large U.K. General Hospital.
Adults hospitalized between January 1, 2010, and February 1, 2016.
None.
We applied the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment score and National Early Warning Score to 5,435,344 vital signs sets (241,996 hospital admissions). Patients were categorized as having no infection, primary infection, or secondary infection using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition codes. National Early Warning Score was significantly better at discriminating in-hospital mortality, irrespective of infection status (no infection, National Early Warning Score 0.831 [0.825-0.838] vs quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment 0.688 [0.680-0.695]; primary infection, National Early Warning Score 0.805 [0.799-0.812] vs quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment 0.677 [0.670-0.685]). Similarly, National Early Warning Score performed significantly better in all patient groups (all admissions, emergency medicine admissions, and emergency surgery admissions) for all outcomes studied. Overall, quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment performed no better, and often worse, in admissions with infection than without.
The National Early Warning Score outperforms the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment score, irrespective of infection status. These findings suggest that quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment should be reevaluated as the system of choice for identifying non-ICU patients with suspected infection who are at greater risk of poor outcome.
Sepsis-3 工作组建议使用快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分来识别疑似感染且预后不良风险较高的患者,但许多医院已经使用国家早期预警评分来识别高风险患者,而不论其诊断如何。我们旨在比较快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分和国家早期预警评分在有和无感染的住院非 ICU 患者中的表现。
回顾性队列研究。
英国大型综合医院。
2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 2 月 1 日期间住院的成年人。
无。
我们将快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分和国家早期预警评分应用于 5435344 个生命体征集(241996 例住院患者)。使用国际疾病分类第 10 版代码将患者分为无感染、原发性感染或继发性感染。无论感染状态如何,国家早期预警评分在预测院内死亡率方面表现均优于快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分(无感染患者:国家早期预警评分 0.831[0.825-0.838] vs 快速序贯[器官功能衰竭相关]评分 0.688[0.680-0.695];原发性感染患者:国家早期预警评分 0.805[0.799-0.812] vs 快速序贯[器官功能衰竭相关]评分 0.677[0.670-0.685])。同样,在所有研究的结局中,国家早期预警评分在所有患者群体(所有入院患者、急诊入院患者和急诊手术入院患者)中表现均优于快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分。总体而言,快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分在感染入院患者中的表现并不优于无感染患者,且往往更差。
无论感染状态如何,国家早期预警评分均优于快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分。这些发现表明,快速序贯(器官功能衰竭相关)评分应重新评估为识别疑似感染且预后不良风险较高的非 ICU 患者的首选系统。