Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
J Crit Care. 2020 Feb;55:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.09.019. Epub 2019 Oct 9.
We sought to elucidate the performance of a Quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment-65 (qSOFA-65) score in recognizing sepsis and to compare the qSOFA-65 score to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and qSOFA scores.
We performed a matched case-control study using propensity score matching. The number of patients meeting qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were calculated between the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. We compared the diagnostic performance of the three scoring systems in predicting sepsis.
A total of 2441 patients were included in the study. In propensity matched cohorts, the percentage of patients who met qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were 46.7%, 14.3%, and 55.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity scores for the qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria for sepsis were 0.66 and 0.73, 0.28 and 0.97, and 0.66 and 0.55, respectively. The AUC value of qSOFA-65 positive criteria in predicting sepsis was significantly higher than that of qSOFA and SIRS positive criteria (adjusted AUC 0.688 vs. 0.630 vs. 0.596, respectively).
We found that qSOFA-65 was more likely to identify patients with sepsis on the initial ED visit relative to qSOFA or SIRS. This may have quality improvement implications in predicting sepsis.
我们旨在阐明快速序贯器官衰竭评估-65 分(qSOFA-65)评分在识别脓毒症方面的表现,并将 qSOFA-65 评分与全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)和 qSOFA 评分进行比较。
我们采用倾向评分匹配进行了一项匹配病例对照研究。计算了脓毒症组和非脓毒症组中符合 qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准的患者人数。我们比较了三种评分系统在预测脓毒症方面的诊断性能。
共有 2441 名患者纳入本研究。在倾向评分匹配队列中,符合 qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准的患者比例分别为 46.7%、14.3%和 55.6%。qSOFA-65、qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准对脓毒症的敏感性和特异性评分分别为 0.66 和 0.73、0.28 和 0.97、0.66 和 0.55。qSOFA-65 阳性标准预测脓毒症的 AUC 值明显高于 qSOFA 和 SIRS 阳性标准(调整后的 AUC 分别为 0.688、0.630 和 0.596)。
我们发现,与 qSOFA 或 SIRS 相比,qSOFA-65 更有可能在急诊初始就诊时识别出患有脓毒症的患者。这可能对预测脓毒症具有质量改进意义。