qSOFA predicted pneumonia mortality better than minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence.

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the discriminatory capacity of quick sequential [sepsis-related] organ failure assessment (qSOFA) versus IDSA/ATS minor criteria for predicting mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

METHODS

An observational prospective cohort study of 2116 patients with CAP was performed. Construct validity was determined using Cronbach α. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI).

RESULTS

Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.43%. Mortality was 25.96% for patients with a qSOFA score of 2 or higher versus 3.05% for those with a qSOFA score less than 2 (odds ratio for mortality 6.57, P < 0.0001), and 13.85% for patients with at least 3 minor criteria versus 2.03% for those with 2 or fewer minor criteria (odds ratio for mortality 2.27, P < 0.0001). qSOFA had a higher correlation with mortality than minor criteria, as well as higher internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.43 versus 0.14) and diagnostic values of individual elements (larger AUROCs and higher Youden's indices). qSOFA ≥2 was less sensitive but more specific for predicting mortality than ≥3 minor criteria (qSOFA sensitivity 59.6%, specificity 88.3% and positive likelihood ratio 5.11 versus ≥3 minor criteria sensitivity 80.1%, specificity 65.8% and positive likelihood ratio 2.34). The predictive validity of qSOFA was good for mortality (AUROC = 0.868), was statistically greater than minor criteria, was equal to pneumonia severity index, and was inferior compared with CURB-65 (AUROC, 0.824, 0.902, 0.919; NRI, 0.088, -0.068, -0.103; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The qSOFA predicted mortality in CAP better than IDSA/ATS minor criteria and worse than CURB-65 with robust elements and higher convergence. qSOFA as a bedside prompt might be positioned as a proxy for minor criteria and increase the recognition and thus merit more appropriate management of CAP patients likely to fare poorly, which might have implications for more accurate clinical triage decisions.