Cargando…

Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Recently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Jianjun, Yang, Jin, Mei, Jing, Jin, Yongmei, Lu, Youjin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996880
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9
_version_ 1783339153545494528
author Jiang, Jianjun
Yang, Jin
Mei, Jing
Jin, Yongmei
Lu, Youjin
author_facet Jiang, Jianjun
Yang, Jin
Mei, Jing
Jin, Yongmei
Lu, Youjin
author_sort Jiang, Jianjun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2 × 2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (< 2 and ≥ 2) or SIRS score (< 2 and ≥ 2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I(2) index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38–6.14) using a random-effects model (I(2) = 91.1%). A SIRS score ≥ 2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96–3.86) using a random-effects model (I(2) = 89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score ≥ 2 was more specific; however a SIRS score ≥ 2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections. CONCLUSIONS: A qSOFA score ≥ 2 and SIRS score ≥ 2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6042435
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60424352018-07-13 Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis Jiang, Jianjun Yang, Jin Mei, Jing Jin, Yongmei Lu, Youjin Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Recently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2 × 2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (< 2 and ≥ 2) or SIRS score (< 2 and ≥ 2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I(2) index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38–6.14) using a random-effects model (I(2) = 91.1%). A SIRS score ≥ 2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96–3.86) using a random-effects model (I(2) = 89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score ≥ 2 was more specific; however a SIRS score ≥ 2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections. CONCLUSIONS: A qSOFA score ≥ 2 and SIRS score ≥ 2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6042435/ /pubmed/29996880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
Jiang, Jianjun
Yang, Jin
Mei, Jing
Jin, Yongmei
Lu, Youjin
Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title_full Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title_short Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
title_sort head-to-head comparison of qsofa and sirs criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996880
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangjianjun headtoheadcomparisonofqsofaandsirscriteriainpredictingthemortalityofinfectedpatientsintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysis
AT yangjin headtoheadcomparisonofqsofaandsirscriteriainpredictingthemortalityofinfectedpatientsintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysis
AT meijing headtoheadcomparisonofqsofaandsirscriteriainpredictingthemortalityofinfectedpatientsintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysis
AT jinyongmei headtoheadcomparisonofqsofaandsirscriteriainpredictingthemortalityofinfectedpatientsintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysis
AT luyoujin headtoheadcomparisonofqsofaandsirscriteriainpredictingthemortalityofinfectedpatientsintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysis