Predicting outcome of patients with severe urinary tract infections admitted via the emergency department
Objective To evaluate clinical prediction tools for making decisions in patients with severe urinary tract infections (UTIs). Methods This was a retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals (combined emergency department (ED) census 190,000). Study patients were admitted via the ED with acute pyelon...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open Vol. 1; no. 4; pp. 502 - 511 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
John Wiley and Sons Inc
01.08.2020
Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Objective
To evaluate clinical prediction tools for making decisions in patients with severe urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Methods
This was a retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals (combined emergency department (ED) census 190,000). Study patients were admitted via the ED with acute pyelonephritis or severe sepsis‐septic shock related UTI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) augmented by decision curve analysis and sensitivity of each rule for predicting mortality and ICU admission were compared.
Results
The AUROC of PRACTICE was greater than that of BOMBARD (0.15 difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09–0.22), SIRS (0.21 difference, 95% CI = 0.14–0.28) and qSOFA (0.06 difference, 95% CI = 0–0.11) for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to BOMBARD and SIRS at all thresholds and a greater net benefit compared to qSOFA between a 1% and 10% threshold probability level for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to all other scores for predicting ICU admission across all threshold probabilities. A PRACTICE score >75 was more sensitive than a qSOFA score >1 (90% versus 54.3%, 35.7 difference, 95% CI = 24.5–46.9), SIRS criteria >1 (18.6 difference, 95% CI = 9.5–27.7), and a BOMBARD score >2 (12.9 difference, 95% CI = 5–12.9) for predicting mortality.
Conclusion
PRACTICE was more accurate than BOMBARD, SIRS, and qSOFA for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a superior net benefit at most thresholds compared to other scores for predicting mortality and ICU admissions. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Presented at SAEM May 11–15, 2020 and Southeastern SAEM February 20–21, 2020. JACEP Open The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. ORMC Sepsis Study Group: Katie Pearson, MD, George Gulenay, MD, Matt Schattschneider, MD, Virginia Owens, MD, Christiaan Myburgh, MD, Bryce Bergeron, MD, Talia Cola, MD, and Danielle DiCesare, MD. policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see By Supervising Editor: Junichi Sasaki, MD. www.icmje.org Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the value is changed from 7 to 75 in the sentence “In the subset with uncomplicated disease, mortality was 0.4% in those with an initial PRACTICE score ≤7”. Funding and support ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
ISSN: | 2688-1152 2688-1152 |
DOI: | 10.1002/emp2.12133 |