Key result
SOFA outperforms SIRS and qSOFA for predicting mortality or prolonged ICU stay in urolithiasis-associated sepsis.
Why the study?
The prognostic effectiveness of Sepsis-3 criteria including SOFA and qSOFA compared with SIRS criteria in patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis transferred to ICU after surgery was unclear.
Does the SOFA score predict in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay better than qSOFA or SIRS criteria in patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis following surgical interventions?
Cohort (n=107)
No
Does the SOFA score predict in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay better than qSOFA or SIRS criteria in patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis following surgical interventions?
The SOFA score is superior to qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay in patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis following surgical interventions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SOFA may aid prognostication in urolithiasis sepsis; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic effectiveness of Sepsis-3 criteria, including sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick SOFA (qSOFA), with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria among patients with urolithiasis associated sepsis that were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) facilities following surgical interventions. To achieve this, the records of all patients transferred to ICU following surgical interventions with urolithiasis-associated sepsis between January 2010 to July 2017 at Xin Hua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 107 patients were enrolled. The prognostic performances of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS for predicting in-hospital mortality (sepsis-related mortality during patients' hospitalizations) or prolonged length of ICU stay (>3 days) were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and Z statistic values. The results revealed that the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.4% and the percentage of in-hospital mortality or prolonged length of ICU stay (>3 days) was 72.0% among the 107 patients. The favorable outcome group exhibited significantly decreased white blood cell counts, and levels of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin and increased systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure. The AUROC of qSOFA, SIRS and SOFA were 0.615, 0.625 and 0.860, respectively. SOFA was significantly more effective at predicting adverse outcomes when compared with SIRS and qSOFA criteria. Following adjustments for patient age and comorbidities, the AUROC values of qSOFA, SIRS and SOFA were 0.713, 0.722 and 0.940. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that the prognostic performance of SOFA for predicting in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay among patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis following surgical interventions was significantly improved when compared with qSOFA or SIRS criteria. Based on these results it is recommended that urologists use the SOFA score for patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shi et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Urolithiasis-associated sepsis (n=107). SOFA score vs. qSOFA and SIRS criteria was evaluated on In-hospital mortality or prolonged length of ICU stay (>3 days) (AUROC 0.860, 95% CI 0.780-0.920, p=<0.0001). The SOFA score demonstrated significantly better prognostic performance for predicting in-hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay (AUROC 0.860) compared to SIRS (AUROC 0.625) and qSOFA (AUROC 0.615) criteria in patients with urolithiasis-associated sepsis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: