Comparison of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Quick SOFA Scores in Predicting in-Hospital Mortality among Adult Critical Care Patients with Suspected Infection

Said Mohammed A, Siika Wangari-Waweru, Mung'ayi Vitalis, Shah Reena
{"title":"Comparison of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Quick SOFA Scores in Predicting in-Hospital Mortality among Adult Critical Care Patients with Suspected Infection","authors":"Said Mohammed A, Siika Wangari-Waweru, Mung'ayi Vitalis, Shah Reena","doi":"10.23937/2474-3674/1510084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Sepsis is global health priority and the leading cause of death in critical care. The SEPSIS 3 criteria introduced in 2016 is the latest tool in diagnosing sepsis. It uses SOFA and qSOFA scores in place of the SIRS criteria for better ability to predict mortality in patients with suspected infections. The performance of these scores in critical care units outside high-income countries remains largely unknown. Methods: We compared the performance of SOFA and qSOFA in predicting the in-hospital mortality of an adult critical care unit in Kenya. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients admitted to the critical care units with suspected infection between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017. A standardized electronic data collection tool was be used to collect demographic, clinical and outcome data on the participants. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) with 95% confidence inter - vals was used to compare SOFA and qSOFA. Results: We enrolled 450 patients with a mean age of 56 years [SD ± 19.10] and 57.60% were male. Majority of the patients, 352 (78.20%), presented through the emergency department. Pneumonia was the commonest source of infection 293 (65.10%). There were 92 deaths (mortality rate of 20.44%). The majority of patients, 371 (82.44%) manifested a SOFA score of ≥ 2 and 190 (42.22%) had a qSOFA score of ≥ 2. SOFA score was superior in predicting in hospital mortality compared to qSOFA with an AUROC = 0.799 [0.752-0.846] vs. 0.694 [0.691-0.748, P < 0.001]. Conclusion: A SOFA score of two or more is better than qSOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality among adult critical care patients with suspected infection. This finding suggests that SOFA is an appropriate tool in the initial diagnosis sepsis in critical care setting in a developing country.","PeriodicalId":13937,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2474-3674/1510084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis is global health priority and the leading cause of death in critical care. The SEPSIS 3 criteria introduced in 2016 is the latest tool in diagnosing sepsis. It uses SOFA and qSOFA scores in place of the SIRS criteria for better ability to predict mortality in patients with suspected infections. The performance of these scores in critical care units outside high-income countries remains largely unknown. Methods: We compared the performance of SOFA and qSOFA in predicting the in-hospital mortality of an adult critical care unit in Kenya. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients admitted to the critical care units with suspected infection between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2017. A standardized electronic data collection tool was be used to collect demographic, clinical and outcome data on the participants. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) with 95% confidence inter - vals was used to compare SOFA and qSOFA. Results: We enrolled 450 patients with a mean age of 56 years [SD ± 19.10] and 57.60% were male. Majority of the patients, 352 (78.20%), presented through the emergency department. Pneumonia was the commonest source of infection 293 (65.10%). There were 92 deaths (mortality rate of 20.44%). The majority of patients, 371 (82.44%) manifested a SOFA score of ≥ 2 and 190 (42.22%) had a qSOFA score of ≥ 2. SOFA score was superior in predicting in hospital mortality compared to qSOFA with an AUROC = 0.799 [0.752-0.846] vs. 0.694 [0.691-0.748, P < 0.001]. Conclusion: A SOFA score of two or more is better than qSOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality among adult critical care patients with suspected infection. This finding suggests that SOFA is an appropriate tool in the initial diagnosis sepsis in critical care setting in a developing country.
顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)与快速SOFA评分预测疑似感染成人重症患者住院死亡率的比较
败血症是全球卫生重点问题,也是重症监护患者死亡的主要原因。2016年引入的脓毒症3级标准是诊断脓毒症的最新工具。它使用SOFA和qSOFA评分来代替SIRS标准,以便更好地预测疑似感染患者的死亡率。这些分数在高收入国家以外的重症监护病房的表现在很大程度上仍然未知。方法:我们比较了SOFA和qSOFA在预测肯尼亚成人重症监护病房住院死亡率方面的表现。我们对2017年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间入住重症监护病房的所有疑似感染患者进行了回顾性调查。使用标准化的电子数据收集工具收集参与者的人口统计、临床和结局数据。采用95%置信区间的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)对SOFA和qSOFA进行比较。结果:我们纳入450例患者,平均年龄56岁[SD±19.10],57.60%为男性。352例(78.20%)患者通过急诊科就诊。肺炎是最常见的感染源293(65.10%)。死亡92例(死亡率20.44%)。371例(82.44%)患者的SOFA评分≥2,其中190例(42.22%)患者的qSOFA评分≥2。SOFA评分在预测住院死亡率方面优于qSOFA评分,AUROC = 0.799[0.752-0.846]比0.694 [0.691-0.748,P < 0.001]。结论:SOFA评分2分及以上较qSOFA评分更能预测疑似感染的成人重症患者的住院死亡率。这一发现表明,SOFA是发展中国家重症监护环境中初始诊断败血症的适当工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信