IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0254343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quick sequential organ failure assessment score combined with other sepsis-related risk factors to predict in-hospital mortality: Post-hoc analysis of prospective multicenter study data

Author

Listed:
  • Ryo Ueno
  • Takateru Masubuchi
  • Atsushi Shiraishi
  • Satoshi Gando
  • Toshikazu Abe
  • Shigeki Kushimoto
  • Toshihiko Mayumi
  • Seitaro Fujishima
  • Akiyoshi Hagiwara
  • Toru Hifumi
  • Akira Endo
  • Takayuki Komatsu
  • Joji Kotani
  • Kohji Okamoto
  • Junichi Sasaki
  • Yasukazu Shiino
  • Yutaka Umemura

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the value of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) combined with other risk factors in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infection. This post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter study dataset included 34 emergency departments across Japan (December 2017 to February 2018). We included adult patients (age ≥16 years) who presented to the emergency department with suspected infection. qSOFA was calculated and recorded by senior emergency physicians when they suspected an infection. Different types of sepsis-related risk factors (demographic, functional, and laboratory values) were chosen from prior studies. A logistic regression model was used to assess the predictive value of qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in models based on the following combination of predictors: 1) qSOFA-Only; 2) qSOFA+Age; 3) qSOFA+Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); 4) qSOFA+Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); 5) qSOFA+lactate levels; 6) qSOFA+Age+CCI+CFS+lactate levels. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and other key clinical statistics at Youden’s index, where the sum of sensitivity and specificity is maximized. Following prior literature, an AUC >0.9 was deemed to indicate high accuracy; 0.7–0.9, moderate accuracy; 0.5–0.7, low accuracy; and 0.5, a chance result. Of the 951 patients included in the analysis, 151 (15.9%) died during hospitalization. The AUC for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.627 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.580−0.673) for the qSOFA-Only model. Addition of other variables only marginally improved the model’s AUC; the model that included all potentially relevant variables yielded an AUC of only 0.730 (95% CI: 0.687–0.774). Other key statistic values were similar among all models, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.55−0.65 and 0.60−0.75, respectively. In this post-hoc data analysis from a prospective multicenter study based in Japan, combining qSOFA with other sepsis-related risk factors only marginally improved the model’s predictive value.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryo Ueno & Takateru Masubuchi & Atsushi Shiraishi & Satoshi Gando & Toshikazu Abe & Shigeki Kushimoto & Toshihiko Mayumi & Seitaro Fujishima & Akiyoshi Hagiwara & Toru Hifumi & Akira Endo & Takayuki K, 2021. "Quick sequential organ failure assessment score combined with other sepsis-related risk factors to predict in-hospital mortality: Post-hoc analysis of prospective multicenter study data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0254343
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254343
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254343&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0254343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0254343. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.