Performance of a quick sofa-65 score as a rapid sepsis screening tool during initial emergency department assessment: A propensity score matching study |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin Research, Leiden, the Netherlands;2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands;3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;4. Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;5. Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands;6. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands;1. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia;3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia;4. Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsWe 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
