User login
Sepsis is a major public health concern: 10% of patients with sepsis die, and mortality quadruples with progression to septic shock.1 Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, originally published in 1992, are commonly used to detect sepsis, but as early as 2001, these criteria were recognized as lacking specificity.2 Nonetheless, the use of SIRS criteria has persisted in practice. Sepsis was redefined in Sepsis-3 (2016) to guide earlier and more appropriate identification and treatment, which has been shown to greatly improve patient outcomes.1,3 Key recommendations in Sepsis 3 included eliminating SIRS criteria, defining organ dysfunction by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and introducing the quick SOFA (qSOFA) score.1
The qSOFA combines 3 clinical variables to provide a rapid, simple bedside score that measures the likelihood of poor outcomes, such as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality in adults with suspected infection.1,3 The qSOFA score is intended to aid healthcare professionals in more timely stratification of those patients who need escalated care to prevent deterioration.1 The assessment also has been explored as a screening tool for sepsis in clinical practice; however, limited data exists concerning the comparative utility of qSOFA and SIRS in this capacity, and study results are inconsistent.4-6
The most important attribute of a screening tool is high sensitivity, but high specificity also is desired. The qSOFA could supplant SIRS as a screening tool for sepsis if it maintained similarly high sensitivity but achieved superior specificity. Therefore, our primary objective for this study was to determine the effectiveness of qSOFA as a screening assessment for sepsis in the setting of a general inpatient medicine service by contrasting the sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA with SIRS in predicting sepsis, using a retrospective chart review design.
Methods
Administrative data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse were accessed via the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and used to identify VA inpatient admissions and obtain the laboratory and vital sign data necessary to calculate SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA scores. The data were supplemented by manual review of VA health records to obtain information that was not readily available in administrative records, including septic shock outcomes and laboratory and vital sign data obtained in the ICU. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Iowa and the research and development committee at the Iowa City VA Medical Center (ICVAMC).
Patients
The study population included veterans admitted to the nonsurgical medicine unit at ICVAMC between August 1, 2014 and August 1, 2016 who were transferred to an ICU after admission; direct ICU admissions were not included as the qSOFA has been shown in studies to be more beneficial and offer better predictive validity outside the ICU. Excluding these direct admissions prevented any potential skewing of the data. To control for possible selection bias, veterans also were excluded if they transferred from another facility, were admitted under observation status, or if they had been admitted within the prior 30 days. These patients may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility and any prior treatment could affect the clinical status of the patient and assessment for sepsis at the time of presentation to the VA. Veterans were further required to have evidence of suspected infection based on manual review of the health record, which was determined by receipt of an antibiotic relevant to the empiric treatment of sepsis within 48 hours of admission.
Sepsis and Septic Shock Assessment Tools
As outlined in the Sepsis-3 guidelines, sepsis was defined as suspected or confirmed infection with an acute change in the SOFA score of ≥ 2 points, which is assumed to be 0 in those not known to have preexisting dysfunction.1 The SOFA score includes variables from the respiratory, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, renal, and central nervous systems.1 Septic shock was defined as vasopressor administration and a serum lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L occurring up to 24 hours apart and within 3 days of the first antibiotic dose administered.
The SIRS assessment includes 4 clinical variables (temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and white blood cell count) while qSOFA is comprised of 3 variables (respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and altered mental status).1 With both assessments, a score ≥ 2 is considered positive, which indicates increased risk for sepsis in patients with suspected infection.1 In keeping with existing studies, qSOFA and SIRS assessments were scored using maximum values found within 48 hours before and 24 hours after the first administered antibiotic dose.3
Outcomes
The primary outcome variable was the presence of sepsis in adults with evidence of infection within 48 hours of admission. Secondary outcome measures included 30-day mortality and septic shock.
Performance between the SIRS and qSOFA assessments was contrasted using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value measurements. Associations of qSOFA and SIRS with septic shock and 30-day mortality were evaluated using a 2-tailed Fisher’s exact test with a threshold of α = 0.05 to determine statistical significance.
Results
The study sample of 481 veterans had a mean age of 67.4 years, 94% were male, and 91.1% were white (Table 1). 
Scores for qSOFA, but not SIRS, were significantly associated with septic shock (Fisher’s exact test; qSOFA: P = .009; SIRS: P = .58) (Table 3). 
Discussion
High sensitivity is critical for a sepsis screening tool. To be clinically useful, it has been suggested that biomarkers predicting poor outcomes for sepsis should have a sensitivity of > 80%.4 Although qSOFA demonstrated greater specificity than SIRS in our study (83.6% vs 25.7%), qSOFA showed lower sensitivity (44.7% vs 80.0%), which resulted in a greater potential for false negatives; 55.3% of those with sepsis would go undetected. Therefore, our study does not support qSOFA as a better screening assessment than SIRS for sepsis in the veteran population.
Most studies concur with our findings of low sensitivity and high specificity of qSOFA. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Serafim and colleagues identified 10 studies published after Sepsis-3 that reported sensitivity or specificity of qSOFA and SIRS for sepsis diagnosis.5 Seven of the 10 studies reported sensitivities and favored SIRS in the diagnosis of sepsis (Relative risk: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.40-2.24; P < .0001; I2 = 100%). The authors noted that substantial heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, sample size, and criteria for determination of infection, was an important limitation. In addition, most studies that contrast qSOFA and SIRS center on prognostic value in predicting mortality, rather than as a screening test for a diagnosis of sepsis.
We concluded SIRS was more sensitive and thus superior to qSOFA when used as a screening tool for sepsis but conceded that more prospective and homogenous investigations were necessary. To our knowledge, only 1 published study has deviated from this conclusion and reported comparable sensitivity between SIRS (92%) and qSOFA (90%).6 Our study adds to existing literature as it is the first conducted in a veteran population. Additionally, we performed our investigation in a general medicine population with methods similar to existing literature, including the key study validating clinical criteria for sepsis by Seymour and colleagues.3
Limitations
This study is not without limitations, including potential misclassification of cases if essential data points were not available during data collection via health record review or the data points were not representative of a true change from baseline (eg, the Glasgow Coma Scale score for altered mental status in the qSOFA or the SOFA score for organ dysfunction). Generalizability of the results also may be limited due to our retrospective, single-center design and characteristics typical of a veteran population (eg, older, white males). Additionally, many veterans were excluded from the study if they transferred from another facility. These veterans may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility, which possibly introduced selection bias.
Conclusion
Our findings do not support use of the qSOFA as a suitable replacement for SIRS as a sepsis screening tool among patients with suspected infection in the general medicine inpatient setting. The clinical concern with SIRS is that unfavorable specificity leads to unnecessary antibiotic exposure among patients who are falsely positive. While qSOFA has demonstrated higher specificity, its use would cause many sepsis cases to go undetected due to the technique’s low sensitivity. Frequent false negative qSOFA results could thus serve to impede, rather than enhance, early recognition and intervention for sepsis.
The ideal sepsis screening tool is rapid and possesses high sensitivity and specificity to promptly identify and manage sepsis and avert unfavorable outcomes such as septic shock and death. While the SIRS criteria do not satisfy these ideal features, its measurement characteristics are more suitable for the application of sepsis screening than the qSOFA and should thus remain the standard tool in this setting. Future prospectively designed studies with more uniform methodologies are necessary to ascertain the most effective approach to identify sepsis for which novel screening approaches with more clinically suitable measurement properties are greatly needed.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Iowa City VA Health Care System, Department of Pharmacy Services. Additional support was provided by the Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
1. Singer M, Deutchman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
2. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al; SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250-1256.
3. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
4. Giamorellos-Bourboulis EJ, Tsaganos T, Tsangaris I, et al; Hellenic Sepsis Study Group. Validation of the new Sepsis-3 definitions: proposal for improvement of early risk identification. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;23(2):104-109.
5. Serafim R, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Póvoa P. A Comparison of the Quick-SOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2018;153(3):646-655.
6. Forward E, Konecny P, Burston J, Adhikari S, Doolan H, Jensen T. Predictive validity of qSOFA criteria for sepsis in non-ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(6):945-946.
Sepsis is a major public health concern: 10% of patients with sepsis die, and mortality quadruples with progression to septic shock.1 Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, originally published in 1992, are commonly used to detect sepsis, but as early as 2001, these criteria were recognized as lacking specificity.2 Nonetheless, the use of SIRS criteria has persisted in practice. Sepsis was redefined in Sepsis-3 (2016) to guide earlier and more appropriate identification and treatment, which has been shown to greatly improve patient outcomes.1,3 Key recommendations in Sepsis 3 included eliminating SIRS criteria, defining organ dysfunction by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and introducing the quick SOFA (qSOFA) score.1
The qSOFA combines 3 clinical variables to provide a rapid, simple bedside score that measures the likelihood of poor outcomes, such as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality in adults with suspected infection.1,3 The qSOFA score is intended to aid healthcare professionals in more timely stratification of those patients who need escalated care to prevent deterioration.1 The assessment also has been explored as a screening tool for sepsis in clinical practice; however, limited data exists concerning the comparative utility of qSOFA and SIRS in this capacity, and study results are inconsistent.4-6
The most important attribute of a screening tool is high sensitivity, but high specificity also is desired. The qSOFA could supplant SIRS as a screening tool for sepsis if it maintained similarly high sensitivity but achieved superior specificity. Therefore, our primary objective for this study was to determine the effectiveness of qSOFA as a screening assessment for sepsis in the setting of a general inpatient medicine service by contrasting the sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA with SIRS in predicting sepsis, using a retrospective chart review design.
Methods
Administrative data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse were accessed via the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and used to identify VA inpatient admissions and obtain the laboratory and vital sign data necessary to calculate SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA scores. The data were supplemented by manual review of VA health records to obtain information that was not readily available in administrative records, including septic shock outcomes and laboratory and vital sign data obtained in the ICU. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Iowa and the research and development committee at the Iowa City VA Medical Center (ICVAMC).
Patients
The study population included veterans admitted to the nonsurgical medicine unit at ICVAMC between August 1, 2014 and August 1, 2016 who were transferred to an ICU after admission; direct ICU admissions were not included as the qSOFA has been shown in studies to be more beneficial and offer better predictive validity outside the ICU. Excluding these direct admissions prevented any potential skewing of the data. To control for possible selection bias, veterans also were excluded if they transferred from another facility, were admitted under observation status, or if they had been admitted within the prior 30 days. These patients may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility and any prior treatment could affect the clinical status of the patient and assessment for sepsis at the time of presentation to the VA. Veterans were further required to have evidence of suspected infection based on manual review of the health record, which was determined by receipt of an antibiotic relevant to the empiric treatment of sepsis within 48 hours of admission.
Sepsis and Septic Shock Assessment Tools
As outlined in the Sepsis-3 guidelines, sepsis was defined as suspected or confirmed infection with an acute change in the SOFA score of ≥ 2 points, which is assumed to be 0 in those not known to have preexisting dysfunction.1 The SOFA score includes variables from the respiratory, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, renal, and central nervous systems.1 Septic shock was defined as vasopressor administration and a serum lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L occurring up to 24 hours apart and within 3 days of the first antibiotic dose administered.
The SIRS assessment includes 4 clinical variables (temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and white blood cell count) while qSOFA is comprised of 3 variables (respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and altered mental status).1 With both assessments, a score ≥ 2 is considered positive, which indicates increased risk for sepsis in patients with suspected infection.1 In keeping with existing studies, qSOFA and SIRS assessments were scored using maximum values found within 48 hours before and 24 hours after the first administered antibiotic dose.3
Outcomes
The primary outcome variable was the presence of sepsis in adults with evidence of infection within 48 hours of admission. Secondary outcome measures included 30-day mortality and septic shock.
Performance between the SIRS and qSOFA assessments was contrasted using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value measurements. Associations of qSOFA and SIRS with septic shock and 30-day mortality were evaluated using a 2-tailed Fisher’s exact test with a threshold of α = 0.05 to determine statistical significance.
Results
The study sample of 481 veterans had a mean age of 67.4 years, 94% were male, and 91.1% were white (Table 1).
Scores for qSOFA, but not SIRS, were significantly associated with septic shock (Fisher’s exact test; qSOFA: P = .009; SIRS: P = .58) (Table 3).
Discussion
High sensitivity is critical for a sepsis screening tool. To be clinically useful, it has been suggested that biomarkers predicting poor outcomes for sepsis should have a sensitivity of > 80%.4 Although qSOFA demonstrated greater specificity than SIRS in our study (83.6% vs 25.7%), qSOFA showed lower sensitivity (44.7% vs 80.0%), which resulted in a greater potential for false negatives; 55.3% of those with sepsis would go undetected. Therefore, our study does not support qSOFA as a better screening assessment than SIRS for sepsis in the veteran population.
Most studies concur with our findings of low sensitivity and high specificity of qSOFA. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Serafim and colleagues identified 10 studies published after Sepsis-3 that reported sensitivity or specificity of qSOFA and SIRS for sepsis diagnosis.5 Seven of the 10 studies reported sensitivities and favored SIRS in the diagnosis of sepsis (Relative risk: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.40-2.24; P < .0001; I2 = 100%). The authors noted that substantial heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, sample size, and criteria for determination of infection, was an important limitation. In addition, most studies that contrast qSOFA and SIRS center on prognostic value in predicting mortality, rather than as a screening test for a diagnosis of sepsis.
We concluded SIRS was more sensitive and thus superior to qSOFA when used as a screening tool for sepsis but conceded that more prospective and homogenous investigations were necessary. To our knowledge, only 1 published study has deviated from this conclusion and reported comparable sensitivity between SIRS (92%) and qSOFA (90%).6 Our study adds to existing literature as it is the first conducted in a veteran population. Additionally, we performed our investigation in a general medicine population with methods similar to existing literature, including the key study validating clinical criteria for sepsis by Seymour and colleagues.3
Limitations
This study is not without limitations, including potential misclassification of cases if essential data points were not available during data collection via health record review or the data points were not representative of a true change from baseline (eg, the Glasgow Coma Scale score for altered mental status in the qSOFA or the SOFA score for organ dysfunction). Generalizability of the results also may be limited due to our retrospective, single-center design and characteristics typical of a veteran population (eg, older, white males). Additionally, many veterans were excluded from the study if they transferred from another facility. These veterans may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility, which possibly introduced selection bias.
Conclusion
Our findings do not support use of the qSOFA as a suitable replacement for SIRS as a sepsis screening tool among patients with suspected infection in the general medicine inpatient setting. The clinical concern with SIRS is that unfavorable specificity leads to unnecessary antibiotic exposure among patients who are falsely positive. While qSOFA has demonstrated higher specificity, its use would cause many sepsis cases to go undetected due to the technique’s low sensitivity. Frequent false negative qSOFA results could thus serve to impede, rather than enhance, early recognition and intervention for sepsis.
The ideal sepsis screening tool is rapid and possesses high sensitivity and specificity to promptly identify and manage sepsis and avert unfavorable outcomes such as septic shock and death. While the SIRS criteria do not satisfy these ideal features, its measurement characteristics are more suitable for the application of sepsis screening than the qSOFA and should thus remain the standard tool in this setting. Future prospectively designed studies with more uniform methodologies are necessary to ascertain the most effective approach to identify sepsis for which novel screening approaches with more clinically suitable measurement properties are greatly needed.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Iowa City VA Health Care System, Department of Pharmacy Services. Additional support was provided by the Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sepsis is a major public health concern: 10% of patients with sepsis die, and mortality quadruples with progression to septic shock.1 Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, originally published in 1992, are commonly used to detect sepsis, but as early as 2001, these criteria were recognized as lacking specificity.2 Nonetheless, the use of SIRS criteria has persisted in practice. Sepsis was redefined in Sepsis-3 (2016) to guide earlier and more appropriate identification and treatment, which has been shown to greatly improve patient outcomes.1,3 Key recommendations in Sepsis 3 included eliminating SIRS criteria, defining organ dysfunction by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and introducing the quick SOFA (qSOFA) score.1
The qSOFA combines 3 clinical variables to provide a rapid, simple bedside score that measures the likelihood of poor outcomes, such as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality in adults with suspected infection.1,3 The qSOFA score is intended to aid healthcare professionals in more timely stratification of those patients who need escalated care to prevent deterioration.1 The assessment also has been explored as a screening tool for sepsis in clinical practice; however, limited data exists concerning the comparative utility of qSOFA and SIRS in this capacity, and study results are inconsistent.4-6
The most important attribute of a screening tool is high sensitivity, but high specificity also is desired. The qSOFA could supplant SIRS as a screening tool for sepsis if it maintained similarly high sensitivity but achieved superior specificity. Therefore, our primary objective for this study was to determine the effectiveness of qSOFA as a screening assessment for sepsis in the setting of a general inpatient medicine service by contrasting the sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA with SIRS in predicting sepsis, using a retrospective chart review design.
Methods
Administrative data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse were accessed via the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and used to identify VA inpatient admissions and obtain the laboratory and vital sign data necessary to calculate SIRS, qSOFA, and SOFA scores. The data were supplemented by manual review of VA health records to obtain information that was not readily available in administrative records, including septic shock outcomes and laboratory and vital sign data obtained in the ICU. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Iowa and the research and development committee at the Iowa City VA Medical Center (ICVAMC).
Patients
The study population included veterans admitted to the nonsurgical medicine unit at ICVAMC between August 1, 2014 and August 1, 2016 who were transferred to an ICU after admission; direct ICU admissions were not included as the qSOFA has been shown in studies to be more beneficial and offer better predictive validity outside the ICU. Excluding these direct admissions prevented any potential skewing of the data. To control for possible selection bias, veterans also were excluded if they transferred from another facility, were admitted under observation status, or if they had been admitted within the prior 30 days. These patients may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility and any prior treatment could affect the clinical status of the patient and assessment for sepsis at the time of presentation to the VA. Veterans were further required to have evidence of suspected infection based on manual review of the health record, which was determined by receipt of an antibiotic relevant to the empiric treatment of sepsis within 48 hours of admission.
Sepsis and Septic Shock Assessment Tools
As outlined in the Sepsis-3 guidelines, sepsis was defined as suspected or confirmed infection with an acute change in the SOFA score of ≥ 2 points, which is assumed to be 0 in those not known to have preexisting dysfunction.1 The SOFA score includes variables from the respiratory, coagulation, hepatic, cardiovascular, renal, and central nervous systems.1 Septic shock was defined as vasopressor administration and a serum lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L occurring up to 24 hours apart and within 3 days of the first antibiotic dose administered.
The SIRS assessment includes 4 clinical variables (temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and white blood cell count) while qSOFA is comprised of 3 variables (respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and altered mental status).1 With both assessments, a score ≥ 2 is considered positive, which indicates increased risk for sepsis in patients with suspected infection.1 In keeping with existing studies, qSOFA and SIRS assessments were scored using maximum values found within 48 hours before and 24 hours after the first administered antibiotic dose.3
Outcomes
The primary outcome variable was the presence of sepsis in adults with evidence of infection within 48 hours of admission. Secondary outcome measures included 30-day mortality and septic shock.
Performance between the SIRS and qSOFA assessments was contrasted using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value measurements. Associations of qSOFA and SIRS with septic shock and 30-day mortality were evaluated using a 2-tailed Fisher’s exact test with a threshold of α = 0.05 to determine statistical significance.
Results
The study sample of 481 veterans had a mean age of 67.4 years, 94% were male, and 91.1% were white (Table 1).
Scores for qSOFA, but not SIRS, were significantly associated with septic shock (Fisher’s exact test; qSOFA: P = .009; SIRS: P = .58) (Table 3).
Discussion
High sensitivity is critical for a sepsis screening tool. To be clinically useful, it has been suggested that biomarkers predicting poor outcomes for sepsis should have a sensitivity of > 80%.4 Although qSOFA demonstrated greater specificity than SIRS in our study (83.6% vs 25.7%), qSOFA showed lower sensitivity (44.7% vs 80.0%), which resulted in a greater potential for false negatives; 55.3% of those with sepsis would go undetected. Therefore, our study does not support qSOFA as a better screening assessment than SIRS for sepsis in the veteran population.
Most studies concur with our findings of low sensitivity and high specificity of qSOFA. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Serafim and colleagues identified 10 studies published after Sepsis-3 that reported sensitivity or specificity of qSOFA and SIRS for sepsis diagnosis.5 Seven of the 10 studies reported sensitivities and favored SIRS in the diagnosis of sepsis (Relative risk: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.40-2.24; P < .0001; I2 = 100%). The authors noted that substantial heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, sample size, and criteria for determination of infection, was an important limitation. In addition, most studies that contrast qSOFA and SIRS center on prognostic value in predicting mortality, rather than as a screening test for a diagnosis of sepsis.
We concluded SIRS was more sensitive and thus superior to qSOFA when used as a screening tool for sepsis but conceded that more prospective and homogenous investigations were necessary. To our knowledge, only 1 published study has deviated from this conclusion and reported comparable sensitivity between SIRS (92%) and qSOFA (90%).6 Our study adds to existing literature as it is the first conducted in a veteran population. Additionally, we performed our investigation in a general medicine population with methods similar to existing literature, including the key study validating clinical criteria for sepsis by Seymour and colleagues.3
Limitations
This study is not without limitations, including potential misclassification of cases if essential data points were not available during data collection via health record review or the data points were not representative of a true change from baseline (eg, the Glasgow Coma Scale score for altered mental status in the qSOFA or the SOFA score for organ dysfunction). Generalizability of the results also may be limited due to our retrospective, single-center design and characteristics typical of a veteran population (eg, older, white males). Additionally, many veterans were excluded from the study if they transferred from another facility. These veterans may have been more critically ill than those who presented directly to our facility, which possibly introduced selection bias.
Conclusion
Our findings do not support use of the qSOFA as a suitable replacement for SIRS as a sepsis screening tool among patients with suspected infection in the general medicine inpatient setting. The clinical concern with SIRS is that unfavorable specificity leads to unnecessary antibiotic exposure among patients who are falsely positive. While qSOFA has demonstrated higher specificity, its use would cause many sepsis cases to go undetected due to the technique’s low sensitivity. Frequent false negative qSOFA results could thus serve to impede, rather than enhance, early recognition and intervention for sepsis.
The ideal sepsis screening tool is rapid and possesses high sensitivity and specificity to promptly identify and manage sepsis and avert unfavorable outcomes such as septic shock and death. While the SIRS criteria do not satisfy these ideal features, its measurement characteristics are more suitable for the application of sepsis screening than the qSOFA and should thus remain the standard tool in this setting. Future prospectively designed studies with more uniform methodologies are necessary to ascertain the most effective approach to identify sepsis for which novel screening approaches with more clinically suitable measurement properties are greatly needed.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Iowa City VA Health Care System, Department of Pharmacy Services. Additional support was provided by the Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
1. Singer M, Deutchman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
2. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al; SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250-1256.
3. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
4. Giamorellos-Bourboulis EJ, Tsaganos T, Tsangaris I, et al; Hellenic Sepsis Study Group. Validation of the new Sepsis-3 definitions: proposal for improvement of early risk identification. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;23(2):104-109.
5. Serafim R, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Póvoa P. A Comparison of the Quick-SOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2018;153(3):646-655.
6. Forward E, Konecny P, Burston J, Adhikari S, Doolan H, Jensen T. Predictive validity of qSOFA criteria for sepsis in non-ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(6):945-946.
1. Singer M, Deutchman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
2. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al; SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(4):1250-1256.
3. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis: for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
4. Giamorellos-Bourboulis EJ, Tsaganos T, Tsangaris I, et al; Hellenic Sepsis Study Group. Validation of the new Sepsis-3 definitions: proposal for improvement of early risk identification. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;23(2):104-109.
5. Serafim R, Gomes JA, Salluh J, Póvoa P. A Comparison of the Quick-SOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis and prediction of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2018;153(3):646-655.
6. Forward E, Konecny P, Burston J, Adhikari S, Doolan H, Jensen T. Predictive validity of qSOFA criteria for sepsis in non-ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(6):945-946.