Performance of scores in the prediction of clinical outcomes in patients admitted from the emergency service
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4722.3479Keywords:
Sepsis, Septic Shock, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Emergency Medical Services, Organ Dysfunction Scores, NursingAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the performance of the quickSOFA scores and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome as predictors of clinical outcomes in patients admitted to an emergency service. Method: a retrospective cohort study, involving adult clinical patients admitted to the emergency service. Analysis of the ROC curve was performed to assess the prognostic indexes between scores and outcomes of interest. Multivariate analysis used Poisson regression with robust variance, evaluating the relationship between variables with biological plausibility and outcomes. Results: 122 patients were selected, 58.2% developed sepsis. Of these, 44.3% had quickSOFA ≥2 points, 87% developed sepsis, 55.6% septic shock and 38.9% died. In the evaluation of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, 78.5% obtained results >2 points; of these, 66.3% developed sepsis, 40% septic shock and 29.5% died. quickSOFA ≥2 showed greater specificity for diagnosis of sepsis in 86% of the cases, for septic shock 70% and for mortality 64%, whereas the second score showed better results for sensitivity with diagnosis of sepsis in 87.5%, septic shock in 92.7% and death in 90.3%. Conclusion: quickSOFA showed by its practicality that it can be used clinically within the emergency services, bringing clinical applicability from the risk classification of patients for the early recognition of unfavorable outcomes.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.