Sreekanth Amith, Jain Ankit, Dutta Souradeep, Shankar Gomathi, Raj Kumar Nagarajan
Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, IND.
Cureus. 2022 Jul 4;14(7):e26560. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26560. eCollection 2022 Jul.
Due to the mixed population enrolled in different studies i.e., medical and surgical cases, conflicting data exists about the accuracy of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) scores in predicting adverse outcomes in patients with suspected sepsis presenting to the surgical emergency.
A prospective observational study was done in the department of surgery of a tertiary teaching hospital, India from June 2018 to July 2019. Consecutive patients who visited the surgical emergency department with suspected sepsis were included. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death.
Of the 410 patients screened, 287 were included in the analysis. The median age was 52 years (interquartile range, 41 to 61years) and 208 (72.8%) were men. Around 56.8% of patients had intra-abdominal pathology, and 43.2% had skin and soft -tissue infection. Sixty-nine (24%) patients died during their hospitalization, 98 (34.1%) patients had organ dysfunction, and 168 (58.5%) patients needed admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). A higher qSOFA score (≥2) was associated with organ dysfunction, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality. The specificity, positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of qSOFA for organ dysfunction (85.7%, 67.8%, 76.3%), ICU admission (92.4%, 89.3%, 64.5%), and in-hospital mortality (81.6%, 52.4%, 77.4%) was higher than SIRS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for qSOFA for these variables was also higher than for SIRS (0.826 vs. 0.524, 0.823 vs. 0.577, and 0.823 vs. 0.555, respectively).
qSOFA is a better model for predicting adverse outcomes and mortality, organ dysfunction, and ICU admission in surgical patients. However, SIRS indicates intervention requirements in a surgical patient better than qSOFA.
由于不同研究纳入的人群混合,即医疗和外科病例,关于快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)和全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)评分在预测外科急诊疑似脓毒症患者不良结局方面的准确性,存在相互矛盾的数据。
2018年6月至2019年7月在印度一家三级教学医院的外科进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。纳入连续就诊于外科急诊科且疑似脓毒症的患者。对患者进行随访直至出院或死亡。
在筛查的410例患者中,287例纳入分析。中位年龄为52岁(四分位间距,41至61岁),208例(72.8%)为男性。约56.8%的患者有腹腔内病变,43.2%有皮肤和软组织感染。69例(24%)患者在住院期间死亡,98例(34.1%)患者出现器官功能障碍,168例(58.5%)患者需要入住重症监护病房(ICU)。较高的qSOFA评分(≥2)与器官功能障碍、入住ICU和院内死亡相关。qSOFA对器官功能障碍(85.7%、67.8%、76.3%)、入住ICU(92.4%、89.3%、64.5%)和院内死亡(81.6%、52.4%、77.4%)的特异性、阳性预测值和诊断准确性均高于SIRS。这些变量的qSOFA的受试者工作特征曲线下面积也高于SIRS(分别为0.826对0.524、0.823对0.577和0.823对0.555)。
qSOFA是预测外科患者不良结局、死亡率、器官功能障碍和入住ICU的更好模型。然而,SIRS在提示外科患者的干预需求方面比qSOFA更好。