Key result
qSOFA performs no better than SIRS for predicting in-hospital mortality in geriatric sepsis patients.
Why the study?
The prognostic value of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in geriatric patients with suspected sepsis is uncertain.
Does the qSOFA score improve mortality prediction compared to SIRS criteria in older multimorbid subjects admitted for suspected sepsis?
Observational (n=272)
Does the qSOFA score improve mortality prediction compared to SIRS criteria in older multimorbid subjects admitted for suspected sepsis?
Effect estimate: AUROC difference 0.05 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.14)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.676% vs 0.626%
p-value: p=0.31
Neither qSOFA nor SIRS at admission are strong predictors of mortality in geriatric acute-care patients with suspected sepsis, suggesting traditional frailty measures may be more useful.
Neither qSOFA nor SIRS strongly predicts mortality in geriatric sepsis; supports frailty measures for future risk tools.
The prognostic value of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in geriatric patients is uncertain. We aimed to compare qSOFA vs. Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria for mortality prediction in older multimorbid subjects, admitted for suspected sepsis in a geriatric ward. We prospectively enrolled 272 patients (aged 83.7 ± 7.4). At admission, qSOFA and SIRS scores were calculated. Mortality was assessed during hospital stay and three months after discharge. The predictive capacity of qSOFA and SIRS was assessed by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC), through pairwise AUROC comparison, and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Both qSOFA and SIRS exhibited a poor prognostic performance (AUROCs 0.676, 95% CI 0.609–0.738, and 0.626, 95% CI 0.558–0.691 for in-hospital mortality; 0.684, 95% CI 0.614–0.748, and 0.596, 95% CI 0.558–0.691 for pooled three-month mortality, respectively). The predictive capacity of qSOFA showed no difference to that of SIRS for in-hospital mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.05, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.14, p = 0.31), but was superior for pooled three-month mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.09, 95% CI 0.01–0.17, p = 0.029). Multivariable logistic regression analysis, accounting for possible confounders, including frailty, showed that both scores were not associated with in-hospital mortality, although qSOFA, unlike SIRS, was associated with pooled three-month mortality. In conclusion, neither qSOFA nor SIRS at admission were strong predictors of mortality in a geriatric acute-care setting. Traditional geriatric measures of frailty may be more useful for predicting adverse outcomes in this setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bastoni et al. (2019) conducted an observational in suspected sepsis (n=272). qSOFA score vs. SIRS criteria was evaluated on in-hospital mortality (AUROC difference 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.14, p=0.31). qSOFA showed no significant difference compared to SIRS for predicting in-hospital mortality in geriatric patients with suspected sepsis (AUROC difference 0.05; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.14; p=0.31).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: