Comparative prognostic accuracy of sepsis scores for hospital mortality in adults with suspected infection in non-ICU and ICU at an academic public hospital.

Abstract

BackgroundSepsis is a global healthcare challenge and reliable tools are needed to identify patients and stratify their risk. Here we compare the prognostic accuracy of the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and national early warning system (NEWS) scores for hospital mortality and other outcomes amongst patients with suspected infection at an academic public hospital.Measurements and main results10,981 adult patients with suspected infection hospitalized at a U.S. academic public hospital between 2011-2017 were retrospectively identified. Primary exposures were the maximum SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, and NEWS scores upon inclusion. Comparative prognostic accuracy for the primary outcome of hospital mortality was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Secondary outcomes included mortality in ICU versus non-ICU settings, ICU transfer, ICU length of stay (LOS) >3 days, and hospital LOS >7 days. Adjusted analyses were performed using a model of baseline risk for hospital mortality. 774 patients (7.1%) died in hospital. Discrimination for hospital mortality was highest for SOFA (AUROC 0.90 [95% CI, 0.89-0.91]), followed by NEWS (AUROC 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.86]), qSOFA (AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85]), and SIRS (AUROC 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.81]; p3 days (SOFA AUROC 0.84 [95% CI, 0.83-0.85; qSOFA AUROC, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.84]; SIRS AUROC, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.74-0.76]; pConclusionsMultivariate prediction scores, such as SOFA and NEWS, had greater prognostic accuracy than qSOFA or SIRS for hospital mortality, ICU transfer, and ICU length of stay. Complex sepsis scores may offer enhanced prognostic performance as compared to simple sepsis scores in inpatient hospital settings where more complex scores can be readily calculated.