39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      qSOFA does not replace SIRS in the definition of sepsis

      editorial
      , ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The recently published consensus definitions for sepsis [1] have raised a lot of discussion and controversy. We had the privilege of being part of this consensus group and fully support the final definitions. We are pleased that a definition has been developed that closely reflects everyday clinical language, recognizing that sepsis is most simply described as a “bad infection” associated with some degree of organ dysfunction, as proposed earlier [2]. The article conveying the consensus definition [1] also emphasizes that sepsis is more often recognized from the associated organ dysfunction than from the more difficult to identify infection, so that sepsis can be defined as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to an infection”. The proposition of the 1992 North American consensus document [3] that sepsis be defined by a combination of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and the presence of an infection raised confusion, because the SIRS criteria (especially fever, tachycardia, and altered white blood cell count) are themselves typical features of infection [3]. As the majority of infected patients will therefore meet the SIRS criteria, they would also be considered to have sepsis by this 1992 definition. This approach to defining sepsis has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of patients diagnosed with sepsis over the years [4]; however, these patients may have less severe disease so that reported parallel reductions in mortality rates [5] may be deceptive [6]. The recent “new” definitions are not so novel, more a return to the traditional use of the term to indicate patients with a substantial and deleterious response to an infection. We doubt that this will change further over time, exactly as the meaning of other words like pneumonia, peritonitis, or meningitis has not changed. We all agree on the fundamental importance of identifying sepsis early and of applying effective and complete treatment to minimize complications. However, the SIRS criteria were too sensitive and not sufficiently specific for this purpose. Rangel-Frausto et al. [7] reported that 68 % of patients admitted to three intensive care units (ICUs) and three general wards met the SIRS criteria; in 198 ICUs in 24 European countries, Sprung et al. [8] reported that 93 % of ICU patients had at least two SIRS criteria at some point during their ICU stay; and in a database of patients in 23 Australian and New Zealand ICUs, Dulhunty et al. [9] reported that 88.4 % of patients had at least two SIRS criteria on ICU admission. In a recent analysis of a large US database, Churpek et al. [10] reported that almost half of the 270,000 patients hospitalized on regular wards met the SIRS criteria at one time or another. Our consensus definition paper suggested the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) as an effective way of raising suspicion of sepsis on the regular floor [1]. Evaluating all six components of the SOFA score can be time consuming, and some require laboratory measurements. By analyzing a large database of hospitalized patients, three clinical elements (hypotension, altered mentation, and tachypnea) were identified that could be used at the bedside to recognize those infected patients who are at risk of deteriorating or having a complicated course (death or ICU stay ≥ 3 days). The presence of two or more of these criteria can be used to prompt clinicians to further evaluate the patient for the presence of infection and/or organ dysfunction, to start or adapt treatment, and to consider transfer to an ICU. Importantly, this approach is designed to be an early warning system, and a patient with less than two qSOFA criteria may still raise concern. Clinical judgment should always supersede tools designed to help improve patient care, such as qSOFA. We would like to stress that, although SIRS was part of the definition of sepsis in 1992 [3], the qSOFA is not part of the new sepsis definitions. This important difference is illustrated in Fig. 1, with panel A showing that infection and sepsis (by the 1992 definition) are virtually the same—infection without SIRS can be found, but it is relatively rare. By contrast, panel B shows that sepsis (by the new SEPSIS-3 definition) represents only a minority of cases of infection. Moreover, panel B illustrates important aspects of the sepsis definition vis-à-vis infection and qSOFA. For example, sepsis can be present without a qSOFA score ≥ 2 because different forms of organ dysfunction may be present than are assessed using the qSOFA, such as hypoxemia, renal failure, coagulopathy, or hyperbilirubinemia. In addition, a patient may have a qSOFA ≥ 2 without infection; for example, in other acute conditions, such as hypovolemia, severe heart failure, or large pulmonary embolism. Further work remains to be done to determine the predictive validity of qSOFA in such patients. Finally, infected patients may have a qSOFA ≥ 2 and not be septic because the degree of hypotension, tachycardia, and/or altered mentation needed to fulfill qSOFA criteria is not the same as that needed to meet the SOFA organ dysfunction criteria necessary for a diagnosis of sepsis; the qSOFA criteria are thus clinically valuable but imperfect markers of sepsis. Nevertheless, in an analysis of a database of more than 74,000 patients, Seymour et al. [11] recently reported that 75 % of patients with suspected infection who had two or more qSOFA points also had at least two SOFA points. Fig. 1 Schematic representation illustrating a the almost complete overlap of sepsis and infection when the SIRS criteria of the 1992 criteria [3] are used and b the differences between qSOFA and sepsis. qSOFA quick sequential organ failure assessment, SIRS systemic inflammatory response syndrome We hope this editorial will clarify that the qSOFA is meant to be used to raise suspicion of sepsis and prompt further action—it is not a replacement for SIRS and is not part of the definition of sepsis. Abbreviations ICU, intensive care unit; qSOFA, quick sequential organ failure assessment; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A prospective study.

          Define the epidemiology of the four recently classified syndromes describing the biologic response to infection: systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Prospective cohort study with a follow-up of 28 days or until discharge if earlier. Three intensive care units and three general wards in a tertiary health care institution. Patients were included if they met at least two of the criteria for SIRS: fever or hypothermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, or abnormal white blood cell count. Development of any stage of the biologic response to infection: sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, end-organ dysfunction, and death. During the study period 3708 patients were admitted to the survey units, and 2527 (68%) met the criteria for SIRS. The incidence density rates for SIRS in the surgical, medical, and cardiovascular intensive care units were 857, 804, and 542 episodes per 1000 patient-days, respectively, and 671, 495, and 320 per 1000 patient-days for the medical, cardiothoracic, and general surgery wards, respectively. Among patients with SIRS, 649 (26%) developed sepsis, 467 (18%) developed severe sepsis, and 110 (4%) developed septic shock. The median interval from SIRS to sepsis was inversely correlated with the number of SIRS criteria (two, three, or all four) that the patients met. As the population of patients progressed from SIRS to septic shock, increasing proportions had adult respiratory distress syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, acute renal failure, and shock. Positive blood cultures were found in 17% of patients with sepsis, in 25% with severe sepsis, and in 69% with septic shock. There were also stepwise increases in mortality rates in the hierarchy from SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock: 7%, 16%, 20%, and 46%, respectively. Of interest, we also observed equal numbers of patients who appeared to have sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock but who had negative cultures. They had been prescribed empirical antibiotics for a median of 3 days. The cause of the systemic inflammatory response in these culture-negative populations is unknown, but they had similar morbidity and mortality rates as the respective culture-positive populations. This prospective epidemiologic study of SIRS and related conditions provides, to our knowledge, the first evidence of a clinical progression from SIRS to sepsis to severe sepsis and septic shock.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Sepsis definitions: time for change.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incidence and Prognostic Value of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and Organ Dysfunctions in Ward Patients.

              Tools that screen inpatients for sepsis use the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and organ dysfunctions, but most studies of these criteria were performed in intensive care unit or emergency room populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +32 2 555 3380 , jlvincent@intensive.org
                greg.martin@emory.edu
                mitchell_levy@brown.edu
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                17 July 2016
                17 July 2016
                2016
                : 20
                : 210
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                [ ]Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Emory University School of Medicine, Grady Memorial Hospital, 615 Michael Street, Suite 205, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
                [ ]Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Alpert Medical School at Brown University, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903 USA
                Article
                1389
                10.1186/s13054-016-1389-z
                4947518
                27423462
                d677ac8c-919a-44d1-bf36-57bc9c8ea17b
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                Categories
                Commentary
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article