Cargando…
The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study
BACKGROUND: Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratificatio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0436-3 |
_version_ | 1783263216039624704 |
---|---|
author | de Groot, Bas Stolwijk, Frank Warmerdam, Mats Lucke, Jacinta A. Singh, Gurpreet K. Abbas, Mo Mooijaart, Simon P. Ansems, Annemieke Esteve Cuevas, Laura Rijpsma, Douwe |
author_facet | de Groot, Bas Stolwijk, Frank Warmerdam, Mats Lucke, Jacinta A. Singh, Gurpreet K. Abbas, Mo Mooijaart, Simon P. Ansems, Annemieke Esteve Cuevas, Laura Rijpsma, Douwe |
author_sort | de Groot, Bas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients (≥70 years) compared to a younger control group (<70 years). METHODS: This was an observational multi-centre study using an existing database in which ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were prospectively included. Patients were stratified by age < 70 and ≥70 years. We assessed the association with in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and the area under the curve (AUC) with receiver operator characteristics of the Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ dysfunction (PIRO), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS), and the Modified and National Early Warning (MEWS and NEWS) scores. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 9.5% ((95%-CI); 7.4–11.5) in the 783 included older patients, and 4.6% (3.6–5.7) in the 1497 included younger patients. In contrast to younger patients, disease severity scores in older patients associated poorly with mortality. The AUCs of all disease severity scores were poor and ranged from 0.56 to 0.64 in older patients, significantly lower than the good AUC range from 0.72 to 0.86 in younger patients. The MEDS had the best AUC (0.64 (0.57–0.71)) in older patients. In older and younger patients, the newly proposed qSOFA score (Sepsis 3.0) had a lower AUC than the PIRO score (sepsis 2.0). CONCLUSION: The prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores was poor and less useful for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-017-0436-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5594503 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55945032017-09-14 The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study de Groot, Bas Stolwijk, Frank Warmerdam, Mats Lucke, Jacinta A. Singh, Gurpreet K. Abbas, Mo Mooijaart, Simon P. Ansems, Annemieke Esteve Cuevas, Laura Rijpsma, Douwe Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients (≥70 years) compared to a younger control group (<70 years). METHODS: This was an observational multi-centre study using an existing database in which ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were prospectively included. Patients were stratified by age < 70 and ≥70 years. We assessed the association with in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and the area under the curve (AUC) with receiver operator characteristics of the Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ dysfunction (PIRO), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS), and the Modified and National Early Warning (MEWS and NEWS) scores. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 9.5% ((95%-CI); 7.4–11.5) in the 783 included older patients, and 4.6% (3.6–5.7) in the 1497 included younger patients. In contrast to younger patients, disease severity scores in older patients associated poorly with mortality. The AUCs of all disease severity scores were poor and ranged from 0.56 to 0.64 in older patients, significantly lower than the good AUC range from 0.72 to 0.86 in younger patients. The MEDS had the best AUC (0.64 (0.57–0.71)) in older patients. In older and younger patients, the newly proposed qSOFA score (Sepsis 3.0) had a lower AUC than the PIRO score (sepsis 2.0). CONCLUSION: The prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores was poor and less useful for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-017-0436-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5594503/ /pubmed/28893325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0436-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Original Research de Groot, Bas Stolwijk, Frank Warmerdam, Mats Lucke, Jacinta A. Singh, Gurpreet K. Abbas, Mo Mooijaart, Simon P. Ansems, Annemieke Esteve Cuevas, Laura Rijpsma, Douwe The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title | The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title_full | The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title_fullStr | The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title_full_unstemmed | The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title_short | The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
title_sort | most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28893325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0436-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT degrootbas themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT stolwijkfrank themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT warmerdammats themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT luckejacintaa themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT singhgurpreetk themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT abbasmo themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT mooijaartsimonp themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT ansemsannemieke themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT estevecuevaslaura themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT rijpsmadouwe themostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT degrootbas mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT stolwijkfrank mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT warmerdammats mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT luckejacintaa mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT singhgurpreetk mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT abbasmo mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT mooijaartsimonp mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT ansemsannemieke mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT estevecuevaslaura mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy AT rijpsmadouwe mostcommonlyuseddiseaseseverityscoresareinappropriateforriskstratificationofolderemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsanobservationalmulticentrestudy |