Background: To determine the validity of the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in the prediction of outcome (in-hospital and 1-month mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospital and ICU length of stay) in adult patients with or without suspected infections where qSOFA was calculated and reported; Methods: Cochrane Central of Controlled trials, EMBASE, BIOSIS, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Nursing Database, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database were the main databases searched. All studies published until 12 April 2018 were considered. All studies except case series, case reports, and conference abstracts were considered. Studies that included patients with neutropenic fever exclusively were excluded. Results: The median AUROC for in-hospital mortality (27 studies with 380,920 patients) was 0.68 (a range of 0.55 to 0.82). A meta-analysis of 377,623 subjects showed a polled AUROC of 0.68 (0.65 to 0.71); however, it also confirmed high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 98.8%, 95%CI 98.6 to 99.0). The median sensitivity and specificity for in-hospital mortality (24 studies with 118,051 patients) was 0.52 (range 0.16 to 0.98) and 0.81 (0.19 to 0.97), respectively. Median positive and negative predictive values were 0.2 (range 0.07 to 0.38) and 0.94 (0.85 to 0.99), respectively.

Background: We aim to compare the prognostic value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and the previous Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and along with their combinations in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This single-centre prospective study recruited a convenience sample of unselected ED patients triaged as category 2 (Emergency) and 3 (Urgent). Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were performed to determine the Area Under the Curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios for the various scores. Results: Of 1253 patients recruited, overall 30-day mortality was 5.7%. The prognostic value for prediction of 30-day mortality, with AUCs for qSOFA !2, SIRS !2, NEWS !5, qSIRS (qSOFA þ SIRS) !2 and NSIRS (NEWS þ SIRS) !5 of 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.64), 0.64 (95%CI 0.62-0.67) and 0.61 (95%CI 0.58-0.63), respectively. Using pairwise comparisons of ROC curves, NEWS !5 and qSIRS !2 were better than qSOFA !2 at predicting 30-day mortality. Conclusions: Among unselected emergency and urgent ED patients, the prognostic value for NEWS and qSIRS were greater than qSOFA, Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients. KEY MESSAGES NEWS !5 and qSIRS !2 were better than qSOFA !2 at predicting 30-day mortality in ED patients. Combinations of qSOFA and SIRS could improve the predictive value for 30-day mortality for ED patients.

ObjectivesCapillary blood lactate testing with handheld analysers has great advantages to reduce the time needed for clinical decisions, and for extended use in the prehospital setting. We investigated the agreement of capillary lactate measured using handheld analysers (CL-Nova and CL-Scout+ measured by Nova and Lactate Scout+ analyzers) and the reference venous level assessed using a point-of-care testing (POCT) blood gas analyser (VL-Ref).DesignA prospective observational study.SettingA university teaching hospital emergency department in Hong Kong.ParticipantsPatients triaged as ‘urgent’ (Category 3 of a 5-point scale), aged ≥18 years during 2016 were eligible. 240 patients (mean age 69.9 years) were recruited.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the agreement of the capillary blood lactate level measured by handheld lactate analyser when compared with the reference standard technique, namely venous blood samples obtained by venepuncture and analysed using the blood gas analyser. The secondary outcome measure was the difference in values of venous lactate using blood gas analysers and handheld lactate analysers.ResultsThe results of VL-Ref ranged from 0.70 to 5.38 mmol/L (mean of 1.96 mmol/L). Regarding capillary lactate measurements, the bias (mean difference) between VL-Ref and CL-Scout+ was −0.22 with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of −2.17 to 1.73 mmol/L and the bias between VL-Ref and CL-Nova was 0.46, with LOA of −1.08 to 2.00 mmol/L. For venous lactate, results showed the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Scout+ was 0.22 with LOA being −0.46 to 0.90 mmol/L, and the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Nova was 0.83 mmol/L with LOA −0.01 to 1.66 mmol/L.ConclusionOur study shows poor agreement between capillary lactate and reference values. The study does not support the clinical utility of capillary lactate POCT. However, venous lactate measured by Scout+ handheld analyser may have potential for screening patients who may need further testing.Trial registration numberNCT02694887.

No abstract

No abstract