Outcome of quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment criteria compare with Chachoengsao’s Sepsis Screening criteria in patient with infection at Bangpakong hospital
Keywords:
Sepsis, qSOFA, Length of stay, Revisit, Mortality rateAbstract
Objective To compare the mortality rate, referral rate, revisit rate and length of stay in the hospital of sepsis and septic shock patients after diagnosed by quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment criteria (qSOFA) and Chachoengsao’s Sepsis Screening criteria (as standard criteria)
Methods Analytical study with historical control group. Study group (n = 49) were patients who were diagnosed sepsis by qSOFA criteria from January 1 to April 30, 2017, and patients who were diagnosed sepsis by Chachoengsao’s Sepsis Screening criteria from July 1 to December 31, 2016 as historical control group (n = 49). Data was analyzed by proportion different test (Z-test) and Cox regression Breslow method for ties.
Results Mortality rate in the study group was less than historical control group (RD = - 4.87%; 95% CI = -0.14, 0.04). Referral rate in study group was higher than historical control group (RD = 4.08%; 95% CI = -0.12, 0.20), and revisit rate was less than historical group (RD = -5.40%; 95% CI = -0.12, 0.01). All of these were not show statistically significant.The sepsis patients in study group were less likely to be hospitalized significantly(Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.35, 0.93, p = 0.026).
Conclusion Sepsis patients whose diagnosed by qSOFA criteria were less likely to be hospitalized than patients those diagnosed by standard criteria. The qSOFA criteria could be decreased the mortality rate and revisit rate, and increased referral rate, but were not show statistically significant
References
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet]. Georgia: Sepsis [Access date 2016 Aug 18]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/datareports/index.html
3. นฤพนธ์ ยุทธเกษมสันต์. อุบัติการณ์และปัจจัยที่มีผลต่อการเสียชีวิตของผู้ป่วย Sepsis ในโรงพยาบาลหนองคาย. ขอนแก่นเวชสาร. 2008; 32: 340-352.
4. ยุทธศาสตร์การพัฒนาระบบบริการ เขตบริการสุขภาพที่ 6 ปี 2558-2560.
5. ฐานข้อมูลผู้ป่วยโรงพยาบาลบางปะกง. 2560.
6. Kleinpell RM, Schorr CA, Balk RA. The new sepsis definitions:Implications for critical care practitioners. Am J Crit Care. 2016; 25: 457-64. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2016574.
7. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW. The Third International Concensus Defnitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016; 315: 801-810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287
8. Freund Y, Lemachatti N, Krastinova E, Van Laer M, Claessens YE, Avondo A, et al; French Society of Emergency Medicine Collaborators Group. Prognostic accuracy of sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the emergency department. JAMA. 2017; 317: 301-08.
9. Goulden R, Hoyle MC, Monis J, Railton D, Riley V, Martin P, et al. qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS for predicting inhospital mortality and ICU admission in emergency admissions treated as sepsis. Emerg Med J. 2018; 35: 345-349. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207120. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
10. Song JU, Sin CK, Park HK, Shim SR, Lee J. 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. 2018; 22: 28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-1952-x.
11. SerafimR, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Povoa P. A comparison of the quick-SOFA and systemic inflammatoryresponse syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2018; 153: 646-55.
12. Finkelsztein EJ, Jones DS, Ma KC, et al. Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit. Critical Care. 2017; 21: 73. doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5.
