Advertisement

Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 593–602 | Cite as

SIRS or qSOFA? Is that the question? Clinical and methodological observations from a meta-analysis and critical review on the prognostication of patients with suspected sepsis outside the ICU

  • Stefano FranchiniEmail author
  • Luca Scarallo
  • Michele Carlucci
  • Luca Cabrini
  • Moreno Tresoldi
CE - SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to assess the prognostic performances, in terms of in-hospital mortality, of the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria applied to patients with suspected infection outside the ICU, and to critically reappraise the results and the clinical impact of the SEPSIS-3 study and of the subsequent trials. We performed bivariate meta-analysis, evaluation of the Bayesian post-test probabilities of death, and computation of the unidentified deaths for every 1000 screened cases (UDS1000). The use of qSOFA for screening instead of the SIRS implies a relevant increase in the UDS1000. However, this difference appears far smaller in the SEPSIS-3 study, largely due to an underestimation of SIRS sensitivity. The increment in the pre-test probability of death implied by a positive qSOFA is higher than that implied by a positivity of the SIRS. However, the included studies use highly variable definitions of “suspected sepsis” and carry very high levels of heterogeneity. SIRS overperforms qSOFA as a rule-out tool for mortality, while qSOFA shows a higher rule-in power. However, the evident lack of consistency across the published studies undermines the significance of both the meta-analytic approach and the reproducibility of the outcomes, and demands for a standardized definition of the target population.

Keywords

qSOFA SIRS Sepsis screening Sepsis prognosis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent:

None.

Supplementary material

11739_2018_1965_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (357 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 356 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML et al (2016) Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:775.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0289 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peach BC (2017) Implications of the new sepsis definition on research and practice. J Crit Care 38:259–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.11.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marik PE, Taeb AM (2017) SIRS, qSOFA and new sepsis definition. J Thorac Dis 9:943–945.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.03.125 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ et al (2016) Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:762.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0288 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Innocenti F, Tozzi C, Donnini C et al (2018) SOFA score in septic patients: incremental prognostic value over age, comorbidities, and parameters of sepsis severity. Intern Emerg Med 13:405–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-017-1629-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vincent JL, Martin GS, Levy MM (2016) qSOFA does not replace SIRS in the definition of sepsis. Crit Care.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1389-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aublanc M, Richard J-C (2016) Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis—was the cart put before the horse? J Thorac Dis 8:E816–E818.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.07.51 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sprung CL, Schein RMH, Balk RA (2016) The new sepsis consensus definitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. Intensive Care Med 42:2024–2026.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4604-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simpson SQ (2016) New sepsis criteria. Chest 149:1117–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.653 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Šimundić A-M (2009) Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. EJIFCC 19:203–211PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC et al (2003) 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Intensive Care Med 29:530–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1662-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 25 Mar 2018
  15. 15.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo J, Riebler A (2018) meta4diag : Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies for routine practice. J Stat Softw.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v083.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A et al (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-31 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    April MD, Aguirre J, Tannenbaum LI et al (2017) Sepsis clinical criteria in emergency department patients admitted to an intensive care unit: an external validation study of quick sequential organ failure assessment. J Emerg Med 52:622–631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.10.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moskowitz A, Patel PV, Grossestreuer AV et al (2017) Quick sequential organ failure assessment and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria as predictors of critical care intervention among patients with suspected infection. Crit Care Med 45:1813–1819.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002622 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ranzani OT, Prina E, Menéndez R et al (2017) New Sepsis definition (Sepsis-3) and community-acquired pneumonia mortality. A validation and clinical decision-making study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 196:1287–1297.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201611-2262OC CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weigle H, Trigonis R, Bunn D et al (2016) 345 Severe Sepsis: What gets it right? A comparison of the quick sequential organ failure assessment versus systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. Ann Emerg Med 68:S132–S133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Askim Å, Moser F, Gustad LT et al (2017) Poor performance of quick-SOFA (qSOFA) score in predicting severe sepsis and mortality—a prospective study of patients admitted with infection to the emergency department. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0399-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finkelsztein EJ, Jones DS, Ma KC et al (2017) Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit. Crit Care.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E et al (2017) Prognostic accuracy of Sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department. JAMA 317:301.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.20329 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    representing the Infectious Disease Group of the Spanish Emergency Medicine Society (see addendum), González del Castillo J, Julian-Jiménez A et al (2017) Prognostic accuracy of SIRS criteria, qSOFA score and GYM score for 30-day-mortality in older non-severely dependent infected patients attended in the emergency department. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 36:2361–2369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-017-3068-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henning DJ, Puskarich MA, Self WH et al (2017) An emergency department validation of the SEP-3 sepsis and septic shock definitions and comparison with 1992 consensus definitions. Ann Emerg Med 70:544–552.e5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Szakmany T, Pugh R, Kopczynska M et al (2018) Defining sepsis on the wards: results of a multi-centre point-prevalence study comparing two sepsis definitions. Anaesthesia 73:195–204.  https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Churpek MM, Snyder A, Han X et al (2017) Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores for detecting clinical deterioration in infected patients outside the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 195:906–911.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201604-0854OC CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams JM, Greenslade JH, McKenzie JV et al (2017) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction. Chest 151:586–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (editors), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010. http://srdta.cochrane.org/. Accessed 9 Aug 2018
  31. 31.
    Serafim R, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Póvoa P (2018) A comparison of the Quick-SOFA and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality. Chest 153:646–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Eusebi P (2013) Diagnostic accuracy measures. Cerebrovasc Dis 36:267–272.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000353863 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song J-U, Sin CK, Park HK et al (2018) Performance of the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment score as a prognostic tool in infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 22:28.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-1952-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seymour CW, Cooke CR, Heckbert SR et al (2013) Prehospital systolic blood pressure Thresholds: a community-based outcomes study. Acad Emerg Med 20:597–604.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12142 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF (2006) The inconsistency of “Optimal” cut-points using two roc based criteria. Am J Epidemiol 163:670–675.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj063 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halligan S, Altman DG, Mallett S (2015) Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol 25:932–939.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3487-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fernando SM, Tran A, Taljaard M et al (2018) Prognostic accuracy of the quick sequential organ failure assessment for mortality in patients with suspected infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 168:266–275.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-2820 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M et al (2017) Prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the Intensive care unit. JAMA 317:290–300.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.20328 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NKJ et al (2016) Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 193:259–272.  https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD et al (2014) Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from 2 independent cohorts. JAMA 312:90–92.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5804 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE et al (2006) Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 34:1589–1596.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Churpek MM, Snyder A, Sokol S et al (2017) Investigating the impact of different suspicion of infection criteria on the accuracy of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and early warning scores. Crit Care Med 45:1805–1812.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002648 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Donnino MW, Fisher J, Fischer J (2006) Determining disease severity in severe sepsis and septic shock. Intern Emerg Med 1:219–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Medicina Interna 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Franchini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luca Scarallo
    • 2
  • Michele Carlucci
    • 1
    • 3
  • Luca Cabrini
    • 4
  • Moreno Tresoldi
    • 5
  1. 1.Emergency DepartmentOspedale San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Pronto SoccorsoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineVita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of General and Emergency SurgeryOspedale San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareOspedale San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  5. 5.Unit of General Medicine and Advanced CareOspedale San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations