Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT05172479
NCT05172479CompletedNot Applicable

Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and EWSs for In-hospital Mortality Among Adult Patients Presenting With Suspected Infection to the Emergency Department (PASSEM): Protocol for an International Multicentre Prospective External Validation Cohort Study

Aseer Central Hospital20 sites in 7 countries3,274 target enrollmentStarted: December 12, 2021Last updated:
Conditions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Sponsor
Enrollment
3,274
Locations
20
Primary Endpoint
In-hospital mortality

Study Overview

Brief Summary

Early identification of a patient with infection who may develop sepsis is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, this remains elusive because no single clinical measure or test can reflect complex pathophysiological changes in patients with sepsis. However, multiple clinical and laboratory parameters indicate impending sepsis and organ dysfunction. Screening tools using these parameters can help identify the condition, such as SIRS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). The 2016 SCCM/ESICM task force recommended using qSOFA, while the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommended against its use compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. We hypothesised that qSOFA has greater prognostic accuracy than SIRS and EWS (NEWS/NEWS2/MEWS).

Detailed Description

Over the past decade, medical advances in sepsis continued to focus on sepsis as a prevalent condition that accounts for 10% of admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) and is associated with a 10-20% in-hospital mortality rate. Standardised protocols and physician awareness have significantly improved survival, but mortality rates remain between 20% and 36%, with ~270,000 deaths annually in the United States. However, of patients with sepsis, 80% are treated in an emergency department (ED), and the remainder develops sepsis during hospitalisation with other conditions. In 2016, the Society of Critical Care Medicine/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SCCM/ESICM) task force redefined sepsis based on organ dysfunction and mortality prediction. Sepsis now is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection. This definition emphasises the complexity of the disease that cannot be explained by infection or body response to it. Acute change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score ≥2 indicates sepsis-related organ dysfunction, a predictor of excess in-hospital mortality. Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and "severe sepsis" terms were omitted from the most recent definition. SIRS has been criticised for its poor specificity, while "severe sepsis" may underestimate sepsis's seriousness. A subset of patients may develop septic shock with underlying profound organ dysfunction and excess mortality. Clinically, septic shock is defined as persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mm Hg and serum lactate level ≥ 2 mmol/L (18 mg/dL) despite adequate volume resuscitation. Early identification of a patient with infection who may develop sepsis is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, this remains elusive because no single clinical measure or test can reflect complex pathophysiological changes in patients with sepsis. However, multiple clinical and laboratory parameters indicate impending sepsis and organ dysfunction. Screening tools using these parameters can help identify the condition, such as SIRS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). The 2016 SCCM/ESICM task force recommended using qSOFA, while the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommended against its use compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. We hypothesised that qSOFA has greater prognostic accuracy than SIRS and EWS (NEWS/NEWS2/MEWS).

Study Design

Study Type
Observational
Observational Model
Cohort
Time Perspective
Prospective

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • Adult patients (age ≥18 years),
  • Suspected infection (based on the opinion of the emergency physician),
  • Planned for hospitalization,
  • Willing to give oral informed consent (if required by recruiting center's IRB).

Exclusion Criteria

  • Presentation to ED is not due to infection (e.g., autoimmune diseases, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, trauma, intoxication ... etc.),
  • Transferred from another hospitals,
  • Code status is "Do-Not-Resuscitate" (DNR)
  • Elective admission through ED
  • Initial diagnosis of infection in the ED was not confirmed after finishing of the recruitment and follow-up phase.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

In-hospital mortality

Time Frame: 30 days

Mortality rate during hospitalization of patient

Secondary Outcomes

  • Length of stay in the intensive care unit(30 days)
  • Intensive care unit admission(30 days)

Investigators

Sponsor
Aseer Central Hospital
Sponsor Class
Other Gov
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Abdullah M Algarni

Family medicine consultant

Aseer Central Hospital

Study Sites (20)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials