; for the French Society of Emergency Medicine Collaborators Group IMPORTANCE An international task force recently redefined the concept of sepsis. This task force recommended the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score instead of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk of mortality. However, these new criteria have not been prospectively validated in some settings, and their added value in the emergency department remains unknown. OBJECTIVE To prospectively validate qSOFA as a mortality predictor and compare the performances of the new sepsis criteria to the previous ones. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS International prospective cohort study, conducted in France, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland between May and June 2016. In the 30 participating emergency departments, for a 4-week period, consecutive patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection were included. All variables from previous and new definitions of sepsis were collected. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. EXPOSURES Measurement of qSOFA, SOFA, and SIRS. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In-hospital mortality. RESULTS Of 1088 patients screened, 879 were included in the analysis. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 47-81 years), 414 (47%) were women, and 379 (43%) had respiratory tract infection. Overall in-hospital mortality was 8%: 3% for patients with a qSOFA score lower than 2 vs 24% for those with qSOFA score of 2 or higher (absolute difference, 21%; 95% CI, 15%-26%). The qSOFA performed better than both SIRS and severe sepsis in predicting in-hospital mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.85) vs 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.70) for both SIRS and severe sepsis (P < .001; incremental AUROC, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22). The hazard ratio of qSOFA score for death was 6.2 (95% CI, 3.8-10.3) vs 3.5 (95% CI, 2.2-5.5) for severe sepsis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infection, the use of qSOFA resulted in greater prognostic accuracy for in-hospital mortality than did either SIRS or severe sepsis. These findings provide support for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria in the emergency department setting.

BackgroundSepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a host response to infection. The quick SOFA (qSOFA) score has been recently proposed as a new bedside clinical score to identify patients with suspected infection at risk of complication (intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality). The aim of this study was to measure the sensitivity of the qSOFA score, SIRS criteria and sepsis definitions to identify the most serious sepsis cases in the prehospital setting and at the emergency department (ED) triage.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of all patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS) to the Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) over twelve months. All patients with a suspected or proven infection after the ED workup were included. We retrospectively analysed the sensitivity of the qSOFA score (≥2 criteria), SIRS criteria (≥2 clinical criteria) and sepsis definition (SIRS criteria + one sign of organ dysfunction or hypoperfusion) in the pre-hospital setting and at the ED triage as predictors of ICU admission, ICU stay of ≥3 days and early (i.e. 48 h) mortality. No direct comparison between the three tools was attempted.ResultsAmong 11,411 patients transported to the University hospital, 886 (7.8%) were included. In the pre-hospital setting, the sensitivity of qSOFA reached 36.3% for ICU admission, 17.4% for ICU stay of three days or more and 68.0% for 48 h mortality. The sensitivity of SIRS criteria reached 68.8% for ICU admission, 74.6% for ICU stay of three days or more and 64.0% for 48 h mortality. The sensitivity of sepsis definition did not reach 60% for any outcome. At ED triage, the sensitivity of qSOFA reached 31.2% for ICU admission, 30.5% for ICU stay of ≥3 days and 60.0% for mortality at 48 h. The sensitivity of SIRS criteria reached 58.8% for ICU admission, 57.6% for ICU stay of ≥3 days 80.0% for mortality at 48 h. The sensitivity of sepsis definition reached 60.0% for 48 h mortality.DiscussionIncidence of sepsis in the ED among patients transported by ambulance was 3.8 percent. This rate, associated to the mortality of sepsis, confirms the necessity to dispose of a test to early identify those patients.ConclusionThe sensitivity performance of all three tools was suboptimal. The qSOFA score, SIRS criteria and sepsis definition have low identification sensitivity in selecting septic patients in the pre-hospital setting or upon arrival in the ED at risk of complication.

BackgroundPriority dispatch accuracy is a key issue in optimizing the match between patients’ medical needs and pre-hospital resources. This study measures the accuracy of a Criteria Based Dispatch (CBD) system, by evaluating discrepancies between dispatch priorities and ambulance crews’ severity evaluations.MethodsThis is a retrospective study conducted from January 2011 to December 2011. We ruled that a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score > 3 (injuries/diseases which can possibly lead to deterioration of vital signs) to 7 (lethal injuries/ diseases) should require a priority dispatch with lights and siren (L&S), while NACA scores < 4 should require a priority dispatch without L&S. Over triage was defined as the proportion of L&S dispatches with a NACA score < 4, and under triage as the proportion of dispatches without L&S with a NACA score > 3.ResultsThere were 29,008 primary missions in 2011, 1122 were excluded. Of the 15,749 L&S missions, 12,333 patients had a NACA score < 4, leading to an over triage rate of 78 %; 561 missions out of 12,137 missions without L&S had a NACA score > 3, leading to an under triage rate of 4.6 %. Sensitivity was 86 % (95 % confidence interval: 85.6–86.4 %), specificity 48 % (47.4–48.6 %), positive predictive value 21.7 % (21.2–22.2 %), and negative predictive value 95.4 % (95.2–95.6 %).ConclusionThe rates of over triage and under triage in our CBD are 78 and 4.6 % respectively. The lack of consistent or universal metrics is perhaps the most important limitation in dispatch accuracy research. This is mainly due to the large heterogeneity of dispatch systems and prehospital emergency system.

No abstract

No abstract