IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i22p8367-d443703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role of qSOFA and SOFA Scoring Systems for Predicting In-Hospital Risk of Deterioration in the Emergency Department

Author

Listed:
  • Raúl López-Izquierdo

    (Emergency Department, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, 47012 Valladolid, Spain
    Joint first authors.)

  • Pablo del Brio-Ibañez

    (Advanced Life Support Unit, Emergency Medical Services, 40002 Segovia, Spain
    Joint first authors.)

  • Francisco Martín-Rodríguez

    (Advanced Life Support Unit, Emergency Medical Services, Advanced Clinical Simulation Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Valladolid, 47005 Valladolid, Spain)

  • Alicia Mohedano-Moriano

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

  • Begoña Polonio-López

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

  • Clara Maestre-Miquel

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

  • Antonio Viñuela

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

  • Carlos Durantez-Fernández

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

  • Miguel Á. Castro Villamor

    (Advanced Clinical Simulation Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Valladolid, 47005 Valladolid, Spain)

  • José L. Martín-Conty

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the usefulness of quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores for the detection of early (two-day) mortality in patients transported by emergency medical services (EMSs) to the emergency department (ED) (infectious and non-infectious). We performed a multicentric, prospective and blinded end-point study in adults transported with high priority by ambulance from the scene to the ED with the participation of five hospitals. For each score, the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated. We included 870 patients in the final cohort. The median age was 70 years (IQR 54–81 years), and 338 (38.8%) of the participants were women. Two-day mortality was 8.3% (73 cases), and 20.9% of cases were of an infectious pathology. For two-day mortality, the qSOFA presented an AUC of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.75–0.87; p < 0.001) globally with a sensitivity of 84.9 (95% CI: 75.0–91.4) and a specificity of 69.4 (95% CI: 66.1–72.5), and a SOFA of 0.909 (95% CI: 0.86–0.95; p < 0.001) with sensitivity of 87.7 (95% CI: 78.2–93.4) and specificity of 80.7 (95% CI: 77.4–83.3). The qSOFA score can serve as a simple initial assessment to detect high-risk patients, and the SOFA score can be used as an advanced tool to confirm organ dysfunction.

Suggested Citation

  • Raúl López-Izquierdo & Pablo del Brio-Ibañez & Francisco Martín-Rodríguez & Alicia Mohedano-Moriano & Begoña Polonio-López & Clara Maestre-Miquel & Antonio Viñuela & Carlos Durantez-Fernández & Miguel, 2020. "Role of qSOFA and SOFA Scoring Systems for Predicting In-Hospital Risk of Deterioration in the Emergency Department," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8367-:d:443703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8367/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8367/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8367-:d:443703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.