Accuracy of the Identification and Prognosis Prediction of SOFA-Based Sepsis-3 for Septic Patients in the Emergency Department Compared With Sepsis-2.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine International Pub Date : 2025-02-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/emmi/1762179
Yi-Jie Zhang, Wei Fang, Zhen Wang
{"title":"Accuracy of the Identification and Prognosis Prediction of SOFA-Based Sepsis-3 for Septic Patients in the Emergency Department Compared With Sepsis-2.","authors":"Yi-Jie Zhang, Wei Fang, Zhen Wang","doi":"10.1155/emmi/1762179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To evaluate the value of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, a Sepsis-3 criterion, for identification and prognosis prediction among adult patients with sepsis in the emergency department (ED) compared with the Sepsis-2. <b>Methods:</b> Adult patients with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED were retrospectively identified via Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3 criteria. The vital signs, laboratory test results, etc., were collected, and the SOFA/quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were calculated accordingly. ROC curves were generated to evaluate mortality prediction accuracy. <b>Results:</b> Among the 481 patients included, 288/339 met the Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3 criteria, respectively, with moderate between-protocol consistency (Kappa = 0.507, <i>p</i> < 0.001; concordance = 77.3%); 115 patients (23.9%) died in hospital or within 28 days. SOFA/qSOFA scores and NEWS were significantly greater in the sepsis and death groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001), but there was no between-group difference for Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3. The temperature (T) and respiratory rate (RR) increased in the death group, whereas the systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased. The usefulness of the SOFA score (AUC = 0.644) for predicting mortality was lower than that of qSOFA score (AUC = 0.716) and NEWS (AUC = 0.718), which could be improved (AUC = 0.701-0.721) by combining with two/three of variables (T, RR, and SBP). <b>Conclusion:</b> Compared with Sepsis-2, Sepsis-3 identified more patients with sepsis and was suitable for ED use. The SOFA score had lower mortality prediction accuracy than the qSOFA score and NEWS, which could be significantly improved by combining with two/three variables (T, RR, and SBP).</p>","PeriodicalId":11528,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"2025 ","pages":"1762179"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835471/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/emmi/1762179","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the value of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, a Sepsis-3 criterion, for identification and prognosis prediction among adult patients with sepsis in the emergency department (ED) compared with the Sepsis-2. Methods: Adult patients with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED were retrospectively identified via Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3 criteria. The vital signs, laboratory test results, etc., were collected, and the SOFA/quick SOFA (qSOFA) scores and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were calculated accordingly. ROC curves were generated to evaluate mortality prediction accuracy. Results: Among the 481 patients included, 288/339 met the Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3 criteria, respectively, with moderate between-protocol consistency (Kappa = 0.507, p < 0.001; concordance = 77.3%); 115 patients (23.9%) died in hospital or within 28 days. SOFA/qSOFA scores and NEWS were significantly greater in the sepsis and death groups (p < 0.001), but there was no between-group difference for Sepsis-2/Sepsis-3. The temperature (T) and respiratory rate (RR) increased in the death group, whereas the systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased. The usefulness of the SOFA score (AUC = 0.644) for predicting mortality was lower than that of qSOFA score (AUC = 0.716) and NEWS (AUC = 0.718), which could be improved (AUC = 0.701-0.721) by combining with two/three of variables (T, RR, and SBP). Conclusion: Compared with Sepsis-2, Sepsis-3 identified more patients with sepsis and was suitable for ED use. The SOFA score had lower mortality prediction accuracy than the qSOFA score and NEWS, which could be significantly improved by combining with two/three variables (T, RR, and SBP).

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine International
Emergency Medicine International EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for doctors, nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to prehospital care, disaster preparedness and response, acute medical and paediatric emergencies, critical care, sports medicine, wound care, and toxicology.
期刊最新文献
Defining the Efficiency of Manual Ventilation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Enhancing Trauma Care in Tertiary Hospitals: Addressing Gaps and Pathways to Improvement. The Protective Effects of Sivelestat Sodium on the Basis of Corticosteroid Therapy in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Accuracy of the Identification and Prognosis Prediction of SOFA-Based Sepsis-3 for Septic Patients in the Emergency Department Compared With Sepsis-2. Potential for Lung Recruitment Maneuvers Estimated by the Cytokines in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
×
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