Introduction: Elderly patients are at increased risk of developing sepsis and its adverse outcomes. Diagnosing and prognosing sepsis is particularly challenging in older patients, especially early at emergency department (ED) arrival. We aimed to study and compare the characteristics of elderly and very elderly ED patients with sepsis and determine baseline factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We also compared prognostic accuracy of the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome, quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), and the National Early Warning Score in predicting mortality.

Background Many early warning scores (EWSs) have been validated to prognosticate adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis in the Emergency Department (ED). These EWSs include the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). However, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) has never been validated for this purpose. We aimed to assess and compare the prognostic utility of REMS with that of SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS for predicting mortality in patients with suspicion of sepsis in the ED. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at the ED of Siriraj Hospital Mahidol University, Thailand. Adult patients suspected of having sepsis in the ED between August 2018 and July 2019 were included. Their EWSs were calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was 7-day mortality. Results A total of 1622 patients were included in the study; 457 (28.2%) died at hospital discharge. REMS yielded the highest discrimination capacity for in-hospital mortality (the area under the receiver operator characteristics curves (AUROC) 0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59, 0.65)), which was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.58 (95%CI 0.55, 0.60); p = 0.005) and SIRS (AUROC 0.52 (95%CI 0.49, 0.55); p < 0.001) but not significantly superior to NEWS (AUROC 0.61 (95%CI 0.58, 0.64); p = 0.27). REMS was the best EWS in terms of calibration and association with the outcome. It could also provide the highest net benefit from the decision curve analysis. Comparison of EWSs plus baseline risk model showed similar results. REMS also performed better than other EWSs for 7-day mortality. Conclusion REMS was an early warning score with higher accuracy than sepsis-related scores (qSOFA and SIRS), similar to NEWS, and had the highest utility in terms of net benefit compared to SIRS, qSOFA and NEWS in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis.

Background During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare providers might have avoided droplet/aerosol-generating procedures, such as non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) due to the concern of themselves being infected. We hypothesized that this change of practice could have also occurred to other non-COVID-infected patients in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods A retrospective analytic study was conducted in the ED of Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, including adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms of respiratory distress between 1 March and 30 April 2020 (the COVID period). A comparison group using the same inclusion criteria was retrieved from 1 March to 30 April 2019 (the pre-COVID period). The primary outcome was rate of NIV and HFNC use. The secondary outcomes were rate of intubation, failure of NIV and HFNC, complications, and mortality. Results A total of 360 and 333 patients were included during the pre-COVID and COVID periods, respectively. After adjusting for baseline differences, patients in the COVID period were less likely to receive either NIV or HFNC than the pre-COVID period (adjusted OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.29–0.92]). Overall, intubation rate was similar between the two study periods. However, patients in respiratory distress with pulmonary edema had a relatively higher intubation rate in the COVID period. There were higher failure rates of NIV and HFNC, more infectious complications, and a higher rate of mortality in the pre-COVID period. Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall usage of NIV and HFNC in emergency non-COVID patients decreased. Although not affecting the overall intubation rate, this change of practice could have affected some groups of patients. Therefore, treatment decisions based on a balance between the benefits to the patients and the safety of healthcare providers should be made.