Quantitative capillary refill time predicts sepsis in patients with suspected infection in the emergency department: an observational study.
Emergency service
Organ dysfunction scores
Sepsis
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome
Triage
Journal
Journal of intensive care
ISSN: 2052-0492
Titre abrégé: J Intensive Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
30
01
2019
accepted:
16
04
2019
entrez:
14
5
2019
pubmed:
14
5
2019
medline:
14
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Outcomes in emergent patients with suspected infection depend on how quickly clinicians evaluate the patients and start treatment. This study was performed to compare the predictive ability of the quantitative capillary refill time (Q-CRT) as a new rapid index versus the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score for sepsis screening in the emergency department. This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective study of adult patients with suspected infection. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and multivariate analyses were used to explore associations of the Q-CRT with the qSOFA score, SIRS score, and lactate concentration. Of the 75 enrolled patients, 48 had sepsis. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT were 0.74, 58%, and 81%, respectively; those for the qSOFA score were 0.83, 66%, and 100%, respectively; those for the SIRS score were 0.61, 81%, and 40%, respectively, for SIRS score; and those for the lactate concentration were 0.76, 72%, and 81%, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences in the AUC between the scores. We then combined the Q-CRT and qSOFA score (Q-CRT/qSOFA combination) for sepsis screening. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT/qSOFA combination were 0.82, 83%, and 81%, respectively. In this study, Q-CRT/qSOFA combination had better sensitivity than the qSOFA score alone and better specificity than the SIRS score alone. There was no significant difference in accuracy between Q-CRT/qSOFA combination and the qSOFA score or lactate concentration. The ability of the Q-CRT to predict sepsis may be similar to that of the qSOFA score or serum lactate concentration; therefore, measurement of the Q-CRT may be an alternative for invasive measurement of the blood lactate concentration in evaluating patients with suspected sepsis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Outcomes in emergent patients with suspected infection depend on how quickly clinicians evaluate the patients and start treatment. This study was performed to compare the predictive ability of the quantitative capillary refill time (Q-CRT) as a new rapid index versus the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score for sepsis screening in the emergency department.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective study of adult patients with suspected infection. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and multivariate analyses were used to explore associations of the Q-CRT with the qSOFA score, SIRS score, and lactate concentration.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 75 enrolled patients, 48 had sepsis. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT were 0.74, 58%, and 81%, respectively; those for the qSOFA score were 0.83, 66%, and 100%, respectively; those for the SIRS score were 0.61, 81%, and 40%, respectively, for SIRS score; and those for the lactate concentration were 0.76, 72%, and 81%, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences in the AUC between the scores. We then combined the Q-CRT and qSOFA score (Q-CRT/qSOFA combination) for sepsis screening. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of Q-CRT/qSOFA combination were 0.82, 83%, and 81%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, Q-CRT/qSOFA combination had better sensitivity than the qSOFA score alone and better specificity than the SIRS score alone. There was no significant difference in accuracy between Q-CRT/qSOFA combination and the qSOFA score or lactate concentration. The ability of the Q-CRT to predict sepsis may be similar to that of the qSOFA score or serum lactate concentration; therefore, measurement of the Q-CRT may be an alternative for invasive measurement of the blood lactate concentration in evaluating patients with suspected sepsis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31080620
doi: 10.1186/s40560-019-0382-4
pii: 382
pmc: PMC6501379
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
29Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The study was approved by the hospitals’ institutional review boards. All patients provided informed consent to participate.Not applicableNM consults for Nihon Kohden Corporation on development of the Q-CRT measurement device. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by Yokohama City University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research. All of the other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Références
Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul;29(7):1303-10
pubmed: 11445675
Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr;31(4):1250-6
pubmed: 12682500
N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 17;348(16):1546-54
pubmed: 12700374
Chest. 1992 Jun;101(6):1644-55
pubmed: 1303622
J Anesth. 2003;17(4):259-66
pubmed: 14625714
Am J Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;26(1):62-5
pubmed: 18082783
Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):580-637
pubmed: 23353941
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jul;40(7):958-64
pubmed: 24811942
Emerg Med J. 2015 Jun;32(6):444-8
pubmed: 25139959
Crit Care. 2014 Oct 20;18(5):570
pubmed: 25327977
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb 15;191(4):477-80
pubmed: 25679107
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 23;372(17):1629-38
pubmed: 25776936
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):762-74
pubmed: 26903335
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
Support Care Cancer. 2017 May;25(5):1557-1562
pubmed: 28062972
JAMA. 2017 Jan 17;317(3):301-308
pubmed: 28114554
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017 Jul-Aug;21(4):489-497
pubmed: 28121217
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):29
pubmed: 28281216
Chest. 2018 May;153(5):1169-1176
pubmed: 28711593
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 3;25(1):108
pubmed: 29100549
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 27;12(11):e0188548
pubmed: 29176794
Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Jul 25;:null
pubmed: 30048262
Acute Med Surg. 2018 Jun 05;5(4):321-328
pubmed: 30338077