SepsisComparison 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☆
Introduction
Despite recent therapeutic advances, severe sepsis continues to be associated with high mortality and accounts for more than 500 000 emergency department (ED) visits per year [1], [2], [3], [4]. In addition, there is a direct relationship between intensive care unit (ICU) overcrowding and ED length of stay (LOS). As the ICU overcrowding increases, ED LOS for critically ill patients steadily increases [2], [4], [5], [6]. With respect to severe sepsis, the first 6 hours of disease presentation now often occurs in the ED and has been recognized as the crucial period for early intervention [7], [8], [9].
Accurate identification of patients in the ED who are at high risk (R) of death and in need of intensive therapeutic measures such as early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is crucial, but such a precise method is currently unavailable [10], [11]. On the other hand, physiologic scoring systems have been used over the last several decades to predict mortality in the ICU patient population. In addition, scoring systems have been useful for research purposes to assess disease severity, patient enrollment criteria, and subject equivalency in sepsis clinical trials [12]. Specifically, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system is currently used in the United States to determine patient severity and therapeutic indication for recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) as part of the severe sepsis bundle [13]. For the ED setting, the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score has been evaluated in patients with suspected infection, but its accuracy in predicting mortality in the very high-R patients with severe sepsis and septic shock is limited [14], [15]. Furthermore, the MEDS score requires the clinician to subjectively determine if the patient is to succumb from illness within the next 30 days [16]. Thus, improvements in the accuracy and practicality of scoring systems for the ED setting are needed before their use can become standard practice.
The Predisposition, Insult/Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) model was previously proposed as a new classification system for sepsis [17]. Several derivation studies have been published to provide a scoring system applying the PIRO concept in community-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, suspected sepsis, and severe sepsis [18], [19], [20], [21]. The variables required for a PIRO score can be easily obtained from patient chart review. However, the “I” variable requires ascertainment of infection source and causative organism, an answer that can only be known after culture results are available.
The purpose of the this study is to compare the ability of the PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS scoring systems to accurately predict mortality outcomes among patients meeting criteria for initiating EGDT and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle (SSRB). We selected the PIRO scoring system as defined by Rubulotta et al [21] to examine in our patient population. We also hypothesized that the PIRO model may complement APACHE II as a prognostication tool in the ED to identify patients with severe sepsis with a higher R of death.
Section snippets
Design and setting
This study was an analysis of a prospectively maintained registry of patients presenting to an academic ED meeting criteria for EGDT and SSRB from October 2003 through September 2009. The study and sepsis registry were approved by the institutional review board at our institution with waiver of consent. The PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS scores were calculated for each patient using previously defined criteria [16], [21], [22]. The ED contains 51 beds, with approximately 70 000 patient visits and
Results
Of the 808 patients maintained in the sepsis registry, 541 patients with age 63.5 ± 18.5 years had complete data on all 3 physiologic scoring systems and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis (Table 2). Sixty-two percent (61.9) of patients were diagnosed with septic shock; 63.4%, with positive culture; and 46.9%, with positive blood culture. The median ED LOS was 7 (5 and 10) hours.
During the course of care, 31.8% patients died in the hospital. The median (25th and 75th percentile)
Discussion
Use of prognostication tools within the ED setting is widespread, but the validity and precision of the various physiologic scoring systems for critically ill patients when used in the ED remain questionable [11]. One possible explanation is scoring systems such as APACHE II were designed and validated using patient populations from the intensive care setting. Considering the diagnostic and therapeutic continuum, significant physiologic changes from sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock can
Conclusion
To our knowledge, our study was the first to compare the mortality prediction models PIRO, APACHE II, and MEDS in patients presenting to the ED meeting requirements for EGDT and the SSRB. In this patient cohort, PIRO performed equally well when compared with APACHE II and surpassed MEDS in discriminating survivors from nonsurvivors. In addition, PIRO may be additive in identifying high-R patients with APACHE II 25 or more. Our results reiterate that additional studies are necessary to evaluate,
Acknowledgments
The authors thank James Chenoweth, MD, Ursula Ueno, RN, Sarang Kim, BS, Kristy Burroughs, BS, Robin T. Clark, BS, Thomas W. Cho, MD, William A. Wittlake, MD, and Kathleen Clem, MD, for their contribution in the data collection process, administrative support, and critical review of the manuscript.
References (36)
- et al.
Performance of the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score for predicting hospital mortality among patients with severe sepsis and septic shock
Am J Emerg Med
(2008) - et al.
The ventilator-associated pneumonia PIRO score: a tool for predicting ICU mortality and health-care resources use in ventilator-associated pneumonia
Chest
(2008) - et al.
Long-term mortality and quality of life in sepsis: a systematic review
Crit Care Med
(2010) - et al.
Estimating the degree of emergency department overcrowding in academic medical centers: results of the National ED Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS)
Acad Emerg Med
(2004) - et al.
National estimates of severe sepsis in United States emergency departments
Crit Care Med
(2007) - et al.
Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health
Emerg Med J
(2003) Crisis in the emergency department
N Engl J Med
(2006)- et al.
Emergency department overcrowding in Florida, New York, and Texas
South Med J
(2002) - et al.
Reducing mortality in severe sepsis with the implementation of a core 6-hour bundle: results from the Portuguese community-acquired sepsis study (SACiUCI study)
Crit Care
(2010) - et al.
Impact of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign protocols on hospital length of stay and mortality in septic shock patients: results of a three-year follow-up quasi-experimental study
Crit Care Med
(2010)
Bundled care for septic shock: an analysis of clinical trials
Crit Care Med
Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock
N Engl J Med
Bench-to-bedside review: outcome predictions for critically ill patients in the emergency department
Crit Care
An overview of mortality risk prediction in sepsis
Crit Care Med
Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis
N Engl J Med
Mortality predictions using current physiologic scoring systems in patients meeting criteria for early goal-directed therapy and the severe sepsis resuscitation bundle
Shock
Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score: a prospectively derived and validated clinical prediction rule
Crit Care Med
2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference
Crit Care Med
Cited by (56)
Relationship between prehospital modified Charlson Comorbidity Index and septic shock 30-day mortality
2022, American Journal of Emergency MedicineValidation of the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score for the prognostic stratification of patients with sepsis in the Emergency Department
2021, Medicina IntensivaCitation Excerpt :The PIRO1 system was developed for use at the bedside at presentation with variables easily obtained in the ED.3 PIRO1 was used to guide inpatient disposition,26-28 treatment decision,26-28 prognostic stratification in ICU13 and tested to reduce secondary ICU admissions.13 In our study it confirmed to be effective to predict mortality but was not effective to predict ICU/HDU admission.
The prehospital SIGARC score to assess septic shock in-hospital, 30-day and 90-day mortality
2021, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Sepsis and septic shock are major causes of death of hospitalized patients, especially in intensive care unit (ICU) [2,3], where mortality and morbidity rates of 37.3% and 10.4% were recently reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]. Despite much research in the last ten years, the mortality and morbidity rates of patients presenting with sepsis remain stable [5,6]. Annually, sepsis, whatever its initial stage, is responsible of 20% of all deaths worldwide, corresponding to approximately 11 million deaths ever year [7].
Prehospital Shock Precautions on Triage (PSPoT) score to assess in-hospital mortality for septic shock
2021, American Journal of Emergency MedicinePredictive performance of critical illness scores and procalcitonin in sepsis caused by different gram-stain bacteria
2021, ClinicsCitation Excerpt :Jones et al. (25) found that the MEDS score had an AUC of 0.61 for patients admitted to the ED with septic shock. Similarly, Nguyen et al. (26) found MEDS to have an AUC of 0.63 in patients undergoing early goal-directed treatment in the ED. Our results for AUC were 0.761 for early mortality prediction and 0.744 for late mortality prediction, similar to the AUC of 0.78 found among patients with sepsis in the initial MEDS validation study (10).
- ☆
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.