Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 285445

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : April | Volume : 18 | Issue : 4 | Page : OC20 - OC24 Full Version

Comparison of qSOFA, MEDS, and APACHE II Scores in Early Identification of Sepsis for Patients with 28 Days Mortality and ICU Admission: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: April 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/68367.19331
PD Shiv Ranjit, Akilan Elangovan, TV Ramakrishnan, Tamilanbu Panneerselvam, J Janifer Jasmine

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 3. Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Researcher, Department of Research, Government General Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Correspondence Address :
Akilan Elangovan,
Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai-600116, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: jasminemercy777@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Sepsis is a life-threatening infection that results in organ dysfunction due to an increased pathogen load, necessitating urgent intervention. There is a gap in clinicians’ ability to identify septic patients at high-risk with poor outcomes, highlighting the need for validated predictive scores for early intervention, favourable outcomes, and prompt recovery.

Aim: To validate the predictive capacity of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE 2) scores in patients with 28-day mortality and in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients due to sepsis.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 150 septic patients at the Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research in Chennai, India, between June and December 2022. Parameters assessed included Respiratory Rate (RR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), temperature, White Blood Cell (WBC) count, platelet count, bilirubin, and creatinine. Descriptive analysis of age, gender, source, RR, GCS, SBP, qSOFA, MEDS, APACHE 2 in 28-day mortality, and ICU patients. Positive correlation and good predictivity of predictive scores (qSOFA, MEDS, APACHE 2) were analysed using Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCCRs) statistical test in 28-day mortality and ICU patients.

Results: A total of 150 septic patients (male: female-93:57) with an average age of 57.07±14.4 years were included. Urosepsis was the most common (n=51), followed by respiratory sepsis (n=48). Of these, 96 patients were admitted to the ICU, and 54 patients experienced 28-day mortality. The average and median values of RR were 27.1±7.64 breaths/minute (b/m) and 26 b/m, respectively. SBP values were 106.13±30.47 mmHg and 110 mmHg, respectively. Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) values were 66±16.51 mmHg and 60 mmHg, respectively. The average and median values of GCS were 12.75±3.92 and 15, respectively. The average for qSOFA was 29.1±0.025, with a median of 28; for MEDS, the average was 7.99±5.89, with a median of 7; and for APACHE 2, the average was 16.74±9.64, with a median of 15. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCCRs) demonstrated a strong positive correlation and good predictive validity between qSOFA, MEDS, and APACHE 2 scores in 28-day mortality and ICU patients (<0.001). Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC) analysis indicated good predictive validity for qSOFA in 28-day mortality and ICU patients.

Conclusion: qSOFA exhibited a positive correlation and good predictive validity compared to MEDS and APACHE 2 in both 28-day mortality and ICU patients (<0.001). This study highlights the utility and applicability of qSOFA at the bedside for initial triage, as it can be quickly employed with minimal information.

Keywords

APACHE 2, MEDS, Predictive Scores, qSOFA

Sepsis is a potentially fatal disease that affects all organs of the body, caused by dysregulated host response or immunity to infection. Sepsis is a life-threatening and high-economic spending disease associated with organ dysfunction and requires immediate diagnosis of the source of sepsis (1). Thus, predictive scores such as qSOFA, MEDS, and APACHE 2 supports the diagnosis of poor outcomes and high-risk.

According to the 2016 Third International Consensus Definition of Sepsis, septic shock is fatal organ dysfunction due to infection. Predictive scores such as the qSOFA score assess the level of organ dysfunction and identify those at high-risk of poor outcomes (2). Sepsis causes six million deaths globally each year, surpassing tuberculosis (1.29 million deaths) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (1.3 million deaths), making it a significant global burden (3). Sepsis is responsible for 20% of deaths worldwide, particularly in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) (4). Male elderly patients with lower extremity burns, scalds, total burns, delayed treatment, and co-morbidities such as diabetes are at high-risk (5). Regarding the source of sepsis, patients with Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and ureteroscopy are at higher risk, with post-operative urosepsis occurring in 5.0% of cases (6). In recent times (during Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19), untreated respiratory tract infections have led to sepsis (7). Abdominal sepsis is also a common source of infection resulting in high morbidity and mortality (8).

Cellulitis or skin sepsis can lead to bacteraemia and eventually trigger sepsis, accounting for 2 to 21.3% of cases (9). Sepsis encephalopathy and septic encephalitis are common sources of neurosepsis (10). Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) also have a high-risk of developing sepsis (11). Although several clinical investigations are conducted to stratify septic patients, confirmatory investigations take a longer duration, necessitating specific tools like predictive scores for early sepsis diagnosis. Among the predictive scoring systems, the MEDS score is widely used (12). The qSOFA score often “rules out” sepsis in many wards and emergency departments (13). The APACHE 2 scoring system also provides a good predictive score (14).

Due to the challenges faced in managing the high burden of sepsis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), predictive scores were not routinely utilised (15). A study conducted among residents of LMICs showed that predictive scores were employed in septic patients (16). This publication underscores that India is also one of the LMIC countries where the prevalence of sepsis is under-reported.

Data and research publications from India are scarce, and they primarily focus on infections and microbiological resistance patterns rather than sepsis. Sepsis-related ICU mortality in India is underestimated due to the limited duration of the studies, such as 1-day or 4-day mortality, and the fact that not all sepsis-related deaths in ICU settings are captured, with very few studies testing the combination of predictive scores (17).

Hence, the authors here conducted the present study to test the combination of predictive scores of qSOFA, MEDS, and APACHE 2 in relation to 28-day mortality in ICU patients with the null hypothesis that the true area=0.5.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Emergency Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research in Chennai, India, between June and December 2022. The ethical clearance certificate reference number is CSP-MED/21/NOV/40/150. The informed consent form was received from every patient’s caregiver.

Sample size estimation: A total of 150 sepsis patients were selected with a population standard deviation value of 30, an error rate of 4, and a 95% confidence interval using the formula of

n=1.962σ2/E2

n-Sample Size
1.962-95% Confidence……………1.962
σ2-Standard Deviation………….…302
E2-Error Rate…………………...….42

n=1.962σ2/E2
n=3.84×302/E2
n=3.84×600/16
n=144

The sample size selected for this study was 150 septic patients to assess the validity of the predictive score.

Inclusion criteria:Those patients >18 years of age with clinically diagnosed infections such as pneumonia, abdominal sepsis, skin and soft-tissue infection, cerebral infection, and pyelonephritis were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients under 18 years of age and HIV-positive patients were excluded from the study.

Procedure

The patients’ demographic and clinical details, such as the source of sepsis, Respiratory Rate (RR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), temperature, White Blood Cell (WBC) count, platelet count, bilirubin, and creatinine levels, were recorded.

GCS: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) measures three functional components: eye-opening (E), verbal response (V), and motor response (M). The person can be classified as mild with a GCS score of 13 to 15, moderate with a score of 9 to 12, and severe with a score of 3 to 8 (18).

qSOFA OFA (≥2): The quick qSOFA score includes three clinical factors: RR ≥22 breaths/min, altered mental status with GCS <15, and SBP <100 mmHg (19). A score of 2 or higher indicates a higher risk of death or extended stay in an ICU, especially in septic patients.

MEDS: The MEDS score considers factors such as terminal illness (<30 days survivor), age over 65 years, tachypnoea and/or hypoxia, lower respiratory infection, septic shock, altered cognitive state, platelet count <150,000/mm3, and nursing home residency (20). The MEDS score was created to risk stratify patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.

APACHE 2: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE 2) score is calculated based on acute physiology score, age points, and chronic health points. The score ranges from 0 to 71 (21) and measures illness severity within the first twenty-four hours of admission.

Analysis: The patients’ GCS, qSOFA, MEDS, and APACHE 2 scores were calculated from collected clinical markers, and average, mean, median, and standard deviation values were analysed and recorded. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCC) statistical test was used to determine positive correlation, predictivity, and accuracy with the ROC curve.

Statistical Analysis

The collected data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). To describe the data, descriptive statistics, frequency analysis, and percentage analysis were utilised for categorical variables, while mean and Standard Deviation (SD) were used for continuous variables. Predictive scores (qSOFA, MEDS, APACHE 2), positive correlation, and good predictivity were analysed by SRCC statistical test for 28-day mortality and ICU patients, with a significance level set at <0.05. The overall performance and diagnostic accuracy of qSOFA compared to MEDS and APACHE 2 were assessed using the ROC curve and plotted.

Results

A total of 150 septic patients were observed, and the basic details were tabulated in (Table/Fig 1). There were 93 (62.0%) male patients, which was higher than the number of females, with an average age of 57.0±14.4 years. The analysis of biomarkers was conducted to determine mean and SD values and tabulated in (Table/Fig 2). The mean and SD values for MAP were 76.0±18.3 mm Hg, WBC was 11866.0±3718.7 (mm3), platelets were 137326.7±88948.0 mm3, bilirubin was 3.4±3.0 mg/dL, and creatinine was 12.75±3.92 mg/dL.

The mean, SD, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the study population were analysed and tabulated in (Table/Fig 3) for age (57.0±14.4, median-60 years), RR (27.1±7.6, median-26.00 beats/minute), SBP (106.1±30.4, median-110.00 mm Hg), DBP (66±16.5, median-60.00 mm Hg), GCS score (average-12.7±3.9, median-15.00), MEDS score (7.95.8, median-7.00), and APACHE 2 score (16.7±9.6, median-15.00).

The qSOFA scores were distributed as follows: score 0-43 (28.7%), score 1-38 (25.3%), score 2-44 (29.3%), MEDS score 3- 0 and score 4-25 (16.7%). The mean values of the predictive scores for 28-day mortality and ICU admission patients were analysed and tabulated in (Table/Fig 4).

The SRCC statistical test was employed to analyse the positive correlation and good predictivity between predictivity in 28-day mortality and ICU patients, as shown in (Table/Fig 5). qSOFA and MEDS (AUC-0.888-0.939, AUC-0.907-0.954, p<0.001) demonstrated a positive correlation and good predictivity in 28-day mortality and ICU patients, respectively. qSOFA and APACHE 2 (AUC-0.963-1.014, AUC-0.912-0.963, p<0.001) showed positive correlation and good predictivity in 28-day mortality and ICU patients, respectively. MEDS and APACHE 2 exhibited positive correlation and good predictivity in 28-day mortality and ICU admitted patients (p<0.001).

The strong positive correlation of qSOFA score with MEDS and APACHE 2 was confirmed by ROC analysis for 28-day mortality and ICU patients, showing good predictive accuracy validity (AUC-0.888-0.907), (Table/Fig 6).

Discussion

In the current study, the median age of the patients was 60 years, while Yu H et al.’s study also reported a median age of 62 years for their study patients (22). Urosepsis was more prevalent at 51 (34%) in the present study, whereas Dimitrijevic Z et al., reported that among 489 CKD study patients, 70 (14.3%) developed urosepsis, which is a much higher percentage than in the present study (23). The average RR in the current study was 27.1 (7.64), whereas Wang X et al.’s study presented patients with Neutrophil Percentage Albumin Ratio (NPAR) elevation, an inflammatory predictor marker associated with all causes of illness and lengthy ICU stay, at 18.70±3.72 (<0.001) (24).

In the present study, the respiratory source of sepsis and cellulitis source accounted for 32% and 13%, respectively, which aligns with Mustafa AK et al.’s study on 3406 COVID-19 patients where 59 patients died due to excess ventilation alone, with 29 patients dying from respiratory failure and 27 from sepsis. Abdelhamid AM et al.’s study indicated that cellulitis with tissue inflammation was the third source of sepsis, around 20% (25),(26).

The current study found a positive correlation between qSOFA and MEDS in 28-day mortality and ICU patients, with a correlation coefficient of 0.888-0.907 (<0.001), while Velissaris D et al.’s study reported MEDS and qSOFA after antibiotic initiation within <3 hours and >3 hours (27). Li Y et al.’s research showed a qSOFA ROC score of 0.558 (0.548, 0.568) (28). In a retrospective cohort study on 10,811 patients, the qSOFA score for 28-day mortality was 5.1 (3.4) for patients receiving antibiotics within <3 hours and 3.9 (3.1) for those receiving antibiotics after three hours (29). Ruangsomboon O et al.’s study on all-cause mortality found that qSOFA (AUROC 0.58; 95% CI 0.55-0.61) had the highest predictive performance (30).

The present study reported a strong positive correlation between qSOFA and MEDS (AUC-0.888, 95% CI 0.837-0.939) (<0.001), while Wattanasit P and Khwannimit B; study showed correlation values of qSOFA (0.657, 95% CI 0.609-0.706) and MEDS (0.608, 95% CI 0.551-0.665) with p<0.001 (31). Liu S et al.’s study suggested that Lactate-enhanced qSOFA (LqSOFA) outperformed qSOFA and MEDS with AUC and 95% CI of LqSOFA (AUC-0.751, 95% CI 0.720-0.780), qSOFA (AUC-0.717, 95% CI 0.685-0.748), and MEDS (AUC-0.670, 95% CI 0.636-0.702) (32).

One of the studies conducted and published by Falsetti L et al., in 390 elderly patients aged ≥65 years with suspected infection showed that both SOFA (AUC: 0.686; 95% CI 0.637-0.732; p<0.0001) and qSOFA (AUC: 0.680; 95% CI 0.641-0.735; p<0.0001) in predicting in-hospital death was low in this population (33). The current study presented the ROC of qSOFA which showed good predictive validity in 28 days mortality and ICU patients. Compared to the current study, Liu YC et al.’s study also reported good sensitivity to qSOFA (CI 0.59-0.88 vs. 0.58; CI 0.47-0.67) (34).

When predicting the performance of predictivity of qSOFA in 28-day mortality patients (AUROC 0.833 vs. 0.795, Z=1.378, p=0.168), in ICU admission patients (AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.895, Z=1.022, p=0.307), in patients with mechanical ventilation (AUROC 0.868 vs. 0.845, Z=0.921, p=0.357), and in patients with vasopressor usage (AUROC 0.875 vs. 0.821, Z=2.12, p=0.034) (35). The area under the curve (ROC) for the study by Shahsavarinia K et al., qSOFA outcome prediction was 0.59 (p-value is 0.04). In this study, the time it took to diagnose sepsis was ≤16 minutes when qSOFA was used for predicting outcomes (36).

A retrospective study conducted by Koch C et al., in 13,780 surgical patients both admitted in the ICU and intermediate ICU were assessed for predicting both suspected infection and mortality using SOFA and qSOFA score. In this retrospective study, in critically sick patients, SOFA score prediction accuracy was higher, and prediction of mortality was strong in qSOFA score in both ICU {AUCROC SIRS 0.54 (0.53-0.54); SOFA 0.73 (0.70-0.77); qSOFA 0.59 (0.58-0.59)}, and IMCU {AUCROC SIRS 0.72 (0.71-0.72); SOFA 0.52 (0.51-0.53); qSOFA 0.82 (0.79-0.84)} patients (37).

This current study found the combination of predictive scores such as qSOFA with MEDS and APACHE 2 showed a strong positive correlation and good predictivity (p<0.001), whereas the study by Morkar DN et al., presented the combination of predictive scores, sensitivity of SOFA vs. APACHE 2 was 74.36%, and SOFA vs. SAPS II was 93.94% (38).

Limitation(s)

As this study is a comparative analysis of predictive scores for sepsis, the comparison of other vital markers such as procalcitonin level and other predictive scores such as the Epic Sepsis Model (ESM) and SIRS would have given further insights. This was a limitation of this study.

Conclusion

The present study concluded that a higher number of male patients above 31 years of age group suffered due to sepsis, and urosepsis was the higher source of sepsis. qSOFA showed accuracy, positive correlation, and good predictive values with MEDS and APACHE 2 predictive scores. Therefore, based on institutional protocol, individualised patient’s clinical findings, and the usage of swift predictive scores such as the qSOFA score, and the usage of a combination of predictive scores, clinicians can initiate several planned strategic approaches and innovations for the improvement in sepsis adherence protocol. Effective strategies to prevent deaths due to sepsis include early recognition of the source of the sepsis, usage of a quick predictive score for the identification of disease progression, and appropriate treatment approaches that will reduce the mortality rate due to sepsis. Sepsis is not only life-threatening but also economy-threatening, and hence healthcare settings must practice these predictive scores to improve patients’ quality of life along with their economy.

References

1.
Gorordo-Delsol LA, et al. World sepsis day: A global agenda to target a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2020;319(3):L518-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00369.2020. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-10. Available from: https://doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S. Recognizing sepsis as a global health priority-A WHO resolution. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):414-17. Available from: https://doi:10.1056/NEJMp1707170. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: Analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Ladhani HA, Yowler CJ, Claridge JA. Burn wound colonization, infection, and sepsis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021;22(1):44-48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2020.346. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Cutone B, Chew BH. Risk factors for urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2021;35(7):991-1000. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.1133. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Gu X, Zhou F, Wang Y, Fan G, Cao B. Respiratory viral sepsis: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur Respir Rev. 2020;29(157):200038. Available from: https://DOI:10.1183/16000617.0038-2020. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Hecker A, Reichert M, ReuĂź CJ, Schmoch T, Riedel JG, Schneck E, et al. Intra-abdominal sepsis: New definitions and current clinical standards. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019;404(3):257-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01752-7. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Collazos J, De La Fuente B, De La Fuente J, García A, Gómez H, Menéndez C, et al. Factors associated with sepsis development in 606 Spanish adult patients with cellulitis. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):211. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-4915-1. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Tauber SC, Djukic M, Gossner J, Eiffert H, Brück W, Nau R, et al. Sepsis-associated encephalopathy and septic encephalitis: An update. Expert Rev. Anti-infect. Ther. 2021;19(2):215-31. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2020.1812384. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Lewis JM, Feasey NA, Rylance J. Aetiology and outcomes of sepsis in adults in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Care 2019;23(1):212. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2501. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Hussein AT, Ismail RS, Al-Tameemi SAF. Evaluate the outcomes of patients with sepsis and find out the mortality rate. JHTD. 2023;3(02):31-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55529/jhtd.32.31.42. [crossref]
13.
Usman OA, Usman AA, Ward MA. Comparison of SIRS, qSOFA, and NEWS for the early identification of sepsis in the Emergency Department. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(8):1490-97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.10.058. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Fortis S, O’Shea AM, Beck BF, Nair R, Goto M, Kaboli PJ, et al. An automated computerized critical illness severity scoring system derived from APACHE III: Modified APACHE. J Crit Care. 2018;48:237-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.09.005. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Stephen AH, Montoya RL, Aluisio AR. Sepsis and septic shock in low-and middle-income countries. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2020;21(7):571-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2020.047. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Schmedding M, Adegbite BR, Gould S, Beyeme JO, Adegnika AA, Grobusch MP, et al. A prospective comparison of quick sequential organ failure assessment, systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, universal vital assessment, and modified early warning score to predict mortality in patients with suspected infection in Gabon. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100(1):202-08. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4269%2Fajtmh.18-0577. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Gauer R, Forbes D, Boyer N. Sepsis: Diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician. 2020;101(7):409-18. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32227831/. PMID: 32227831.
18.
Bodien YG, Barra A, Temkin NR, Barber J, Foreman B, Vassar M, et al. Diagnosing level of consciousness: The limits of the glasgow coma scale total score. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(23):3295-305. Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/58r431n9.
19.
Abdullah SOB, Grand J, Sijapati A, Puri PR, Nielsen FE. qSOFA is a useful prognostic factor for 30-day mortality in infected patients fulfilling the SIRS criteria for sepsis. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(3):512-16. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.05.037. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Elbaih AH, Elsayed ZM, Ahmed RM, Abd-Elwahed SA. Sepsis patient evaluation emergency department (SPEED) score & mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score in predicting 28-day mortality of emergency sepsis patients. Chin J Traumatol. 2019;22(06):316-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.10.004. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Diaztagle-Fernández JJ, Moreno-Ladino IJ, Morcillo-Muñoz JA, Morcillo-Muñoz AF, Marcelo-Pinilla LA, Cruz-Martínez LE. Comparative analysis of acid-base balance in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: Traditional approach vs. physicochemical approach. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina. 2019;67(4):441-46. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v67n4.65448. [crossref]
22.
Yu H, Nie L, Liu A, Wu K, Hsein YC, Yen DW, et al. Combining procalcitonin with the qSOFA and sepsis mortality prediction. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(23):e15981. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097%2FMD.0000000000015981.[crossref][PubMed]
23.
Dimitrijevic Z, Paunovic G, Tasic D, Mitic B, Basic D. Risk factors for urosepsis in chronic kidney disease patients with urinary tract infections. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14414. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- 021-93912-3. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Wang X, Wang J, Wu S, Ni Q, Chen P. Association between the neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio and outcomes in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:4933-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM. S328882. [crossref]
25.
Mustafa AK, Joshi DJ, Alexander PJ, Tabachnick DR, Cross CA, Jweied EE, et al. Comparative propensity matched outcomes in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or maximum ventilation alone. Ann Surg. 2021;274(5):e388-e394. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097%2 FSLA.0000000000005187. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Abdelhamid AM, Mageed HM, Mohammad G, AbdelRazik S, Mowafy MS. Evaluation of procalcitonin and C-reactive Protein as prognostic markers in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research. Available from: https://jcdronline.org/admin/Uploads/Files/624966a4db0c96.91702455.pdf.
27.
Velissaris D, Zareifopoulos N, Karamouzos V, Karanikolas E, Pierrakos C, Koniari I, et al. Presepsin as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in sepsis. Cureus. 2021;13(5):e15019. Available from: https://Doi:10.7759/cures.15019. [crossref]
28.
Li Y, Yan C, Gan Z, Xi X, Tan Z, Li J, et al. Prognostic values of SOFA score, qSOFA score, and LODS score for patients with sepsis. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(3):1037-44. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-984. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Luo J, Jiang W, Weng L, Peng J, Hu X, Wang C, et al. Usefulness of qSOFA and SIRS scores for detection of incipient sepsis in general ward patients: A prospective cohort study. J Crit Care. 2019;51:13-18. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.01.012. [crossref][PubMed]
30.
Ruangsomboon O, Boonmee P, Limsuwat C, Chakorn T, Monsomboon A. The utility of the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) compared with SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS for Predicting in-hospital Mortality among Patients with suspicion of Sepsis in an emergency department. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):01-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-020-00396-x. [crossref][PubMed]
31.
Wattanasit P, Khwannimit B. Comparison the accuracy of early warning scores with qSOFA and SIRS for predicting sepsis in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;46:284-88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajem.2020.07.077. [crossref][PubMed]
32.
Liu S, He C, He W, Jiang T. Lactate-enhanced-qSOFA (LqSOFA) score is superior to the other four rapid scoring tools in predicting in-hospital mortality rate of the sepsis patients. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(16):1013. Available from: https://doi. org/10.21037%2Fatm-20-5410. [crossref][PubMed]
33.
Falsetti L, Martino M, Zaccone V, Viticchi G, Raponi A, Moroncini G, et al. SOFA and qSOFA usefulness for in-hospital death prediction of elderly patients admitted for suspected infection in internal medicine. Infection. 2020;48(6):879- 87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-020-01494-5. [crossref][PubMed]
34.
Liu YC, Luo YY, Zhang X, Shou ST, Gao YL, Lu, B, et al. Quick sequential organ failure assessment as a prognostic factor for infected patients outside the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intern Emerg Med. 2019;14(4):603-15. Available from: https://doi:10.1007/s11739-019-02036-0. [crossref][PubMed]
35.
Zhou H, Lan T, Guo S. Prognostic prediction value of qSOFA, SOFA, and admission lactate in septic patients with community-Acquired pneumonia in emergency department. Emerg Med Int. 2020;2020:7979353. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7979353. [crossref][PubMed]
36.
Shahsavarinia K, Moharramzadeh P, Arvanagi RJ, Mahmoodpoor A. qSOFA score for prediction of sepsis outcome in emergency department. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(4):668-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.12669%2Fpjms.36.4.2031. [crossref]
37.
Koch C, Edinger F, Fischer T, Brenck F, Hecker A, Katzer C, et al. Comparison of qSOFA score, SOFA score, and SIRS criteria for the prediction of infection and mortality among surgical intermediate and intensive care patients. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017- 020-00343-y. [crossref][PubMed]
38.
Morkar DN, Dwivedi M, Patil P. Comparative study of SOFA, APACHE II, SAPS II, as a predictor of mortality in patients of sepsis admitted in medical ICU. J Assoc Physicians India. 2022;70(4):11-12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/35443485/.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/68367.19331

Date of Submission: Oct 30, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jan 08, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Feb 29, 2024
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 14, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jan 18, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Feb 23, 2024 (8%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

ETYMOLOGY: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com