{"title":"Comparison of qSOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and SOFA Score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis.","authors":"A M Khan, Shaikh M Aslam","doi":"10.4314/gmj.v56i3.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Early diagnosis and treatment of sepsis are associated with a better outcome. With the change in the definition of sepsis, SOFA score and qSOFA score (heart rate, systolic blood pressure and Glasgow coma scale) were introduced and SIRS criteria were removed. This study compared the qSOFA score, SIRS criteria and SOFA score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Department of General Medicine of a tertiary hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The study included 116 patients.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>SOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst] points), SIRS status (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst] criteria), and qSOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst] points) were calculated using physiological and laboratory parameters recorded within the first 24 hours of ICU admission.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores were calculated and measured using physiological and laboratory parameters. Patients were followed till mortality (non-survivors) or discharge from the hospital (survivors). Data were analysed using software SPSS version 20.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>54 (46.6%) of included patients died. Higher SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores; tachycardia; hypotension; hypoxemia; basophilia; hypoproteinemia; hypoalbuminemia; and need for inotropic support and mechanical ventilation significantly associated with increased mortality. The area under the receiver operating curve for qSOFA ≥2 (0.678; p=0.001) and SOFA (0.74; p=0.000) were comparable and significant, whereas SIRS ≥2 (0.580, p=0.139) was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A qSOFA score of greater than 2 is comparable to SOFA and is better than SIRS score greater than 2 for predicting mortality.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None indicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":35509,"journal":{"name":"Ghana Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10336629/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ghana Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/gmj.v56i3.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Early diagnosis and treatment of sepsis are associated with a better outcome. With the change in the definition of sepsis, SOFA score and qSOFA score (heart rate, systolic blood pressure and Glasgow coma scale) were introduced and SIRS criteria were removed. This study compared the qSOFA score, SIRS criteria and SOFA score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis.
Design: Prospective observational study.
Setting: Department of General Medicine of a tertiary hospital.
Participants: The study included 116 patients.
Interventions: SOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst] points), SIRS status (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst] criteria), and qSOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst] points) were calculated using physiological and laboratory parameters recorded within the first 24 hours of ICU admission.
Main outcome measures: SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores were calculated and measured using physiological and laboratory parameters. Patients were followed till mortality (non-survivors) or discharge from the hospital (survivors). Data were analysed using software SPSS version 20.
Results: 54 (46.6%) of included patients died. Higher SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores; tachycardia; hypotension; hypoxemia; basophilia; hypoproteinemia; hypoalbuminemia; and need for inotropic support and mechanical ventilation significantly associated with increased mortality. The area under the receiver operating curve for qSOFA ≥2 (0.678; p=0.001) and SOFA (0.74; p=0.000) were comparable and significant, whereas SIRS ≥2 (0.580, p=0.139) was not statistically significant.
Conclusions: A qSOFA score of greater than 2 is comparable to SOFA and is better than SIRS score greater than 2 for predicting mortality.
目的:早期诊断和治疗脓毒症具有较好的预后。随着脓毒症定义的改变,引入SOFA评分和qSOFA评分(心率、收缩压和格拉斯哥昏迷评分),取消SIRS标准。本研究比较了qSOFA评分、SIRS标准和SOFA评分作为脓毒症患者死亡率的预测指标。设计:前瞻性观察研究。单位:某三级医院综合内科。参与者:该研究包括116名患者。干预措施:根据ICU入院前24小时记录的生理和实验室参数,计算SOFA评分(范围,0[最好]至24[最差]分)、SIRS状态(范围,0[最好]至4[最差]分)和qSOFA评分(范围,0[最好]至3[最差]分)。主要结局指标:利用生理和实验室参数计算和测量SOFA、qSOFA和SIRS评分。随访患者直至死亡(非幸存者)或出院(幸存者)。数据分析采用SPSS version 20软件。结果:54例(46.6%)患者死亡。更高的SOFA、qSOFA和SIRS分数;心动过速;低血压;血氧不足;嗜碱性;血液蛋白不足;低白蛋白血症;对肌力支持和机械通气的需求与死亡率增加显著相关。qSOFA≥2时,受试者工作曲线下面积(0.678;p=0.001)和SOFA (0.74;p=0.000)具有可比性和显著性,而SIRS≥2 (0.580,p=0.139)无统计学意义。结论:qSOFA评分大于2分与SOFA评分相当,在预测死亡率方面优于SIRS评分大于2分。资金来源:未指明。