An observational cohort study of the performance of the REDS score compared to the SIRS criteria, NEWS2, CURB65, SOFA, MEDS and PIRO scores to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis

被引:9
|
作者
Sivayoham, Narani [1 ]
Hussain, Adil N. [1 ]
Shabbo, Luke [1 ]
Christie, Dylon [1 ]
机构
[1] St Georges Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Emergency Med, Blackshaw Rd, London SW17 0QT, England
关键词
Clinical prediction rule; emergency department; prognosis; discrimination; sepsis; septic shock; INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS DEFINITIONS; FAILURE ASSESSMENT SCORE; GOAL-DIRECTED THERAPY; EARLY WARNING SCORE; SEPTIC SHOCK; ORGAN FAILURE; MORTALITY; CARE; VALIDATION; GUIDELINES;
D O I
10.1080/07853890.2021.1992495
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To compare the performance of the Risk-stratification of Emergency Department suspected Sepsis (REDS) score to the SIRS criteria, NEWS2, CURB65, SOFA, MEDS and PIRO scores, to risk-stratify Emergency Department (ED) suspected sepsis patients for mortality. Method A retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected data. Adult patients admitted from the ED after receiving intravenous antibiotics for suspected sepsis in the year 2020, were studied. Patients with COVID-19 were excluded. The scores stated above were calculated for each patient. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for each score for the primary outcome measure, all-cause in-hospital mortality. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves and cut-off points were identified by the statistical software. Scores above the cut-off point were deemed high-risk. The test characteristics of the high-risk groups were calculated. Comparisons were based on the AUROC curve and sensitivity for mortality of the high-risk groups. Previously published cut-off points were also studied. Calibration was also studied. Results Of the 2594 patients studied, 332 (12.8%) died. The AUROC curve for the REDS score 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.75) was significantly greater than the AUROC curve for the SIRS criteria 0.51 (95% CI 0.49-0.53), p < .0001 and the NEWS2 score 0.69 (95% CI 0.67-0.70), p = .005, and similar to all other scores studied. Sensitivity for mortality at the respective cut-off points identified (REDS >= 3, NEWS2 >= 8, CURB65 >= 3, SOFA >= 3, MEDS >= 10 and PIRO >= 10) was greatest for the REDS score at 80.1% (95% CI 75.4-84.3) and significantly greater than the other scores. The sensitivity for mortality for an increase of two points from baseline in the SOFA score was 63% (95% CI 57.5-68.2). Conclusions In this single centre study, the REDS score had either a greater AUROC curve or sensitivity for mortality compared to the comparator scores, at the respective cut-off points identified. KEY MESSAGES The REDS score is a simple and objective scoring system to risk-stratify for mortality in emergency department (MED) patients with suspected sepsis. The REDS score is better or equivalent to existing scoring systems in its discrimination for mortality.
引用
收藏
页码:1863 / 1874
页数:12
相关论文
共 3 条
  • [1] Performance of the CURB65, NEWS2, qSOFA, SOFA, REDS, ISARIC 4C, PRIEST and the Novel COVID-19 Severity Scores, Used to Risk-Stratify Emergency Department Patients with COVID-19, on Mortality-An Observational Cohort Study
    Sheerin, Thomas
    Dwivedi, Prerak
    Hussain, Adil
    Sivayoham, Narani
    [J]. COVID, 2023, 3 (04): : 555 - 566
  • [2] Prognostic performance of the REDS score, SOFA score, NEWS2 score, and the red-flag, NICE high-risk, and SIRS criteria to predict survival at 180 days, in emergency department patients admitted with suspected sepsis - An observational cohort study
    Sivayoham, Narani
    Hussain, Adil N.
    Sheerin, Thomas
    Dwivedi, Prerak
    Curpanen, Danalakshmee
    Rhodes, Andrew
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2023, 10
  • [3] The REDS score: a new scoring system to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis: a derivation and validation study
    Sivayoham, Narani
    Blake, Lesley A.
    Tharimoopantavida, Shafi E.
    Chughtai, Saad
    Hussain, Adil N.
    Cecconi, Maurizio
    Rhodes, Andrew
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (08):