Comparison of Predisposition, Insult/Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II, and Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis in patients meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine the performance of the Predisposition, Insult/Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) model compared with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) scoring systems in predicting in-hospital mortality for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with severe sepsis or septic shock.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an analysis of a prospectively maintained registry including adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle over a 6-year period. The registry contains data on patient demographics, sepsis category, vital signs, laboratory values, ED length of stay, hospital length of stay, physiologic scores, and outcome status. The discrimination and calibration characteristics of PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS were analyzed.

RESULTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with age 63.5 ± 18.5 years were enrolled, 61.9% in septic shock, 46.9% blood-culture positive, and 31.8% in-hospital mortality. Median (25th and 75th percentile) PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS scores were 6 (5 and 8), 28 (22 and 34), and 12 (9 and 15), with predicted mortalities of 48.5% (40.1 and 63.9), 66.0% (42.0 and 83.0), and 16.0% (9.0 and 39.0), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for PIRO was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.75); APACHE II, 0.71 (0.66-0.76); and MEDS, 0.63 (0.60-0.70). The standardized mortality ratio was 0.70 (0.08-1.41), 0.70 (-0.46 to 1.80), and 4.00 (-8.53 to 16.62), respectively. Actual mortality significantly increased with increasing PIRO score in patients with APACHE II 25 or more (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS: The PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS have variable abilities to early discriminate and estimate in-hospital mortality of patients presenting to the ED meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle. The PIRO may provide additional risk stratification in patients with APACHE II 25 or more. More studies are required to evaluate the clinical applicability of PIRO in high-risk patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.