SOFA-2 was developed to update the SOFA score for contemporary clinical practice, but its performance in older adult emergency department (ED) patients with sepsis is uncertain. We evaluated SOFA-2 for short-term mortality prediction and compared it with SOFA and commonly used early warning scores. This single-center retrospective cohort study included 330 hospitalized ED patients aged ≥ 65 years with sepsis. SOFA-2, SOFA, NEWS, NEWS-L, and MEWS were calculated from the initial ED assessment. The outcomes were 1-day and 7-day in-hospital mortality. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with pairwise comparisons by DeLong’s test and Holm–Bonferroni correction. Threshold-based sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated. Mortality occurred in 43 patients (13.0%) within 1 day and 141 (42.7%) within 7 days. SOFA-2 had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.77–0.89) for 1-day mortality and 0.76 (95% CI 0.70–0.81) for 7-day mortality, compared with 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.89) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.70–0.80), respectively, for SOFA; these differences were not significant (adjusted p = 0.526 and p = 0.756). SOFA-2 also did not differ significantly from NEWS-L for either outcome. It outperformed MEWS for both outcomes and NEWS for 7-day mortality, whereas the difference from NEWS for 1-day mortality was not significant after correction. At the intermediate-or-high-risk threshold, SOFA-2 had lower sensitivity than SOFA for 1-day (86.0% vs. 100.0%) and 7-day mortality (67.4% vs. 92.9%), but higher specificity (59.2% vs. 20.6% and 68.8% vs. 25.9%, respectively). SOFA-2 showed good discrimination for short-term mortality but did not improve prognostic performance over the original SOFA score in this cohort. Its lower sensitivity at the intermediate-or-high-risk threshold is a direct function of the non-validated cutoffs applied and should not be interpreted as evidence of reduced clinical utility. Larger multicenter studies are needed for external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Satıcı et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: