Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ function assessment, and organ dysfunction: insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection

Background A proposed revision of sepsis definitions has abandoned the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), defined organ dysfunction as an increase in total Sequential Organ Function Assessment (SOFA) score of\ua0≥ 2, and conceived “qSOFA” (quick SOFA) as a bedside indicator of organ dysfunction. We aimed to (1) determine the prognostic impact of SIRS, (2) compare the diagnostic accuracy of SIRS and qSOFA for organ dysfunction, and (3) compare standard (Sepsis-2) and revised (Sepsis-3) definitions for organ dysfunction in ED patients with infection. Methods Consecutive ED patients admitted with presumed infection were prospectively enrolled over 3 years. Sufficient observational data were collected to calculate SIRS, qSOFA, SOFA, comorbidity, and mortality. Results We enrolled 8,871 patients, with SIRS present in 4,176 (47.1%). SIRS was associated with increased risk of organ dysfunction (relative risk [RR] 3.5) and mortality in patients without organ dysfunction (OR 3.2). SIRS and qSOFA showed similar discrimination for organ dysfunction (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.72 vs\ua00.73). qSOFA was specific but poorly sensitive for organ dysfunction (96.1%\ua0and 29.7%, respectively). Mortality for patients with organ dysfunction was similar for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 (12.5%\ua0and 11.4%, respectively), although 29%\ua0of patients with Sepsis-3 organ dysfunction did not meet Sepsis-2 criteria. Increasing numbers of Sepsis-2 organ system dysfunctions were associated with greater mortality. Conclusions SIRS was associated with organ dysfunction and mortality, and abandoning the concept appears premature. A qSOFA score\ua0≥ 2 showed high specificity, but poor sensitivity may limit utility as a bedside screening method. Although mortality for organ dysfunction was comparable between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3, more prognostic and clinical information is conveyed using Sepsis-2 regarding number and type of organ dysfunctions. The SOFA score may require recalibration

A prospective registry of emergency department patients admitted with infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with infections account for a significant proportion of Emergency Department (ED) workload, with many hospital patients admitted with severe sepsis initially investigated and resuscitated in the ED. The aim of this registry is to systematically collect quality observational clinical and microbiological data regarding emergency patients admitted with infection, in order to explore in detail the microbiological profile of these patients, and to provide the foundation for a significant programme of prospective observational studies and further clinical research.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>ED patients admitted with infection will be identified through daily review of the computerised database of ED admissions, and clinical information such as site of infection, physiological status in the ED, and components of management abstracted from patients' charts. This information will be supplemented by further data regarding results of investigations, microbiological isolates, and length of stay (LOS) from hospital electronic databases. Outcome measures will be hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and mortality endpoints derived from a national death registry.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This database will provide substantial insights into the characteristics, microbiological profile, and outcomes of emergency patients admitted with infections. It will become the nidus for a programme of research into compliance with evidence-based guidelines, optimisation of empiric antimicrobial regimens, validation of clinical decision rules and identification of outcome determinants. The detailed observational data obtained will provide a solid baseline to inform the design of further controlled trials planned to optimise treatment and outcomes for emergency patients admitted with infections.</p

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely