Predictive usefulness of qSOFA, NEWS and GYM scores in the elderly patient: EDEN-5 study

{"title":"Predictive usefulness of qSOFA, NEWS and GYM scores in the elderly patient: EDEN-5 study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.eimce.2024.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To analyze the prognostic accuracy of the scores NEWS, qSOFA<span>, GYM used in hospital emergency department (ED) in the assessment of elderly patients who consult for an infectious disease.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data from the EDEN (Emergency Department and Elderly Need) cohort were used. This retrospective cohort included all patients aged ≥65 years seen in 52 Spanish EDs during two weeks (from 1-4-2019 to 7-4-2019 and 30/3/2020 to 5/4/2020) with an infectious disease diagnosis<span> in the emergency department. Demographic variables, demographic variables, comorbidities, Charlson and Barthel index and needed scores parameters were recorded. The predictive capacity for 30-day mortality of each scale was estimated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different cut-off points. The primary outcome variable was 30-day mortality.</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span><span>6054 patients were analyzed. Median age was 80 years (IQR 73–87) and 45.3% women. 993 (16,4%) patients died. NEWS score had better AUC than </span>qSOFA (0.765, 95CI: 0.725–0.806, versus 0.700, 95%CI: 0.653–0.746; </span><em>P</em> &lt; .001) and GYM (0.716, 95%CI: 0.675–0.758; <em>P</em> = .024), and there was no difference between qSOFA and GYM (<em>P</em><span> = .345). The highest sensitivity scores for 30-day mortality were GYM ≥ 1 point (85.4%) while the qSOFA score ≥2 points showed high specificity. In the case of the NEWS scale, the cut-off point ≥4 showed high sensitivity, while the cut-off point NEWS ≥ 8 showed high specificity.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>NEWS score showed the highest predictive capacity for 30-day mortality. GYM score ≥1 showed a great sensitivity, while qSOFA ≥2 scores provide the highest specificity but lower sensitivity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72916,"journal":{"name":"Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)","volume":"42 9","pages":"Pages 468-477"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529993X2400008X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To analyze the prognostic accuracy of the scores NEWS, qSOFA, GYM used in hospital emergency department (ED) in the assessment of elderly patients who consult for an infectious disease.

Methods

Data from the EDEN (Emergency Department and Elderly Need) cohort were used. This retrospective cohort included all patients aged ≥65 years seen in 52 Spanish EDs during two weeks (from 1-4-2019 to 7-4-2019 and 30/3/2020 to 5/4/2020) with an infectious disease diagnosis in the emergency department. Demographic variables, demographic variables, comorbidities, Charlson and Barthel index and needed scores parameters were recorded. The predictive capacity for 30-day mortality of each scale was estimated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated for different cut-off points. The primary outcome variable was 30-day mortality.

Results

6054 patients were analyzed. Median age was 80 years (IQR 73–87) and 45.3% women. 993 (16,4%) patients died. NEWS score had better AUC than qSOFA (0.765, 95CI: 0.725–0.806, versus 0.700, 95%CI: 0.653–0.746; P < .001) and GYM (0.716, 95%CI: 0.675–0.758; P = .024), and there was no difference between qSOFA and GYM (P = .345). The highest sensitivity scores for 30-day mortality were GYM ≥ 1 point (85.4%) while the qSOFA score ≥2 points showed high specificity. In the case of the NEWS scale, the cut-off point ≥4 showed high sensitivity, while the cut-off point NEWS ≥ 8 showed high specificity.

Conclusion

NEWS score showed the highest predictive capacity for 30-day mortality. GYM score ≥1 showed a great sensitivity, while qSOFA ≥2 scores provide the highest specificity but lower sensitivity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
qSOFA、NEWS 和 GYM 评分对老年患者的预测作用:EDEN-5 研究。
目的分析医院急诊科(ED)在评估因感染性疾病就诊的老年患者时使用的NEWS、qSOFA和GYM评分的预后准确性:方法:使用来自 EDEN(急诊科和老年人需求)队列的数据。该回顾性队列包括两周内(2019 年 4 月 1 日至 2019 年 4 月 7 日和 2020 年 3 月 30 日至 2020 年 4 月 5 日)在西班牙 52 家急诊室就诊的所有年龄≥65 岁的传染病患者。记录了人口统计学变量、人口统计学变量、合并症、查尔森和巴特尔指数以及所需评分参数。通过计算接收者操作特征曲线(ROC)下的面积来估计每种量表对 30 天死亡率的预测能力,并计算不同截断点的敏感性和特异性。主要结果变量为 30 天死亡率:分析了 6054 名患者。中位年龄为 80 岁(IQR 73-87),女性占 45.3%。993名(16.4%)患者死亡。NEWS 评分的 AUC 值优于 qSOFA(0.765,95CI:0.725-0.806;0.700,95CI:0.653-0.746;P 结论:NEWS评分对30天死亡率的预测能力最高。GYM 评分≥1 显示出很高的灵敏度,而 qSOFA 评分≥2 显示出最高的特异性,但灵敏度较低。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the serological diagnosis of syphilis: A proposal for improvement. HIV and Chagas disease coinfection. How can we optimize the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of pneumonia? Expert opinion-based recommendations. Authors' reply. Which corticosteroid should be used in severe pneumonia? Indirect impact of PCV10 children vaccination on the serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae causing invasive disease in adults over 50 in Colombia, 2005-2019: Observational analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1