We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Evaluation of Repeated Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment Measurements Among Patients With Suspected Infection.
Critical Care Medicine 2018 December
OBJECTIVES: Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012.
PATIENTS: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012.
PATIENTS: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The New Challenge of Obesity - Obesity-Associated Nephropathy.Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity 2024
Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in Therapy 2024 May 15
Oral Anticoagulation Use in Individuals With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Review.Seminars in Nephrology 2024 May 15
Nutrition in the intensive care unit: from the acute phase to beyond.Intensive Care Medicine 2024 May 22
Drug Therapy for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction with Hypertension: A State-of-the-Art Review.American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs : Drugs, Devices, and Other Interventions 2024 April 5
Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2024 May 22
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app