• S W van der Woude, F F van Doormaal, B A Hutten, F J Nellen, and F Holleman.
• Faculty of Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
• Neth J Med. 2018 May 1; 76 (4): 158-166.

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of qSOFA and SOFA compared with the MEWS and SIRS criteria on the classification of emergency department (ED) patients with an infection as having sepsis.MethodsA retrospective single-centre study was performed in a random sample of 600 medical patients who visited the ED of the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam between 1 November 2015 and 1 November 2016. Data for the different sepsis scores, as well as general data and demographics were retrieved. Descriptive analytics and sensitivity/specificity analysis were used to evaluate the performance of the different sepsis tools.ResultsOf 577 evaluable medical patients, 198 patients (34.3%) had a probable infection. The SIRS sepsis criteria, severe sepsis criteria, MEWS ≥ 5 and qSOFA criteria classified 141/198 (71.2%), 55/198 (27.8%), 58/198 (29.3%) and 17/198 patients (8.6%) respectively, as septic. The in-hospital mortality of patients classified as septic by the SIRS and qSOFA score was 6.4% and 29.4%. The qSOFA and SIRS score of ≥ 2 had a specificity of 93.7% (95% CI: 91.3-95.6) and 56.9% (52.7-61.1) in predicting in-hospital mortality.ConclusionNo major differences in gender, age, comorbidity and site of infection between patients with sepsis or severe sepsis classified by the SIRS, qSOFA criteria or MEWS of ≥ 5 were found. The qSOFA criteria classifies a smaller group of patients as septic compared with the SIRS or MEWS. Due to this strict selection, the qSOFA score seems unsuitable as a bedside tool in the work-up and treatment of sepsis at the ED.

18 keywords...

hide…