Dataset Information

Good Performance of Revised Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes of Aeromonas Bacteremia in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aeromonas species, Gram-negative, non-sporulating, facultative, and anaerobic bacilli, widely distributed in aquatic environments, derive various infections, including bacteremia. Most of these infections were opportunistic and found in patients with predisposing conditions. Among the infections, bacteremia remains with notable mortality, reported from 15% to 45%. However, predicting systems for assessing the mortality risk of this disease have yet to be investigated. We aimed to validate the performance of specific predictive scoring systems to assess the clinical outcomes of Aeromonas bacteremia and applied the revised systems to predict mortality risk.

Methods

A retrospective observational study reviewed patients with bacteremia caused by Aeromonas spp. based on at least one positive blood culture sample collected in the emergency department from January 2012 to December 2020. The outcome was in-hospital mortality. We used seven predictive scoring systems to predict the clinical outcome. According to the effectiveness in predicting mortality, we revised three of the seven predictive scoring systems by specific characteristics to refine their risk-predicting performances.

Results

We enrolled 165 patients with bacteremia caused by Aeromonas spp., including 121 males (73.3%) and 44 females (26.7%), with a mean age of 66.1 ± 14.9 years and an average length of hospital stay of 12.4 ± 10.9 days. The overall mortality rate was 32.7% (54/165). The non-survivors had significantly higher scores in MEDS (6.7 ± 4.2 vs. 12.2 ± 3.3, p < 0.001), NEWS (4.0 ± 2.8 vs. 5.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.008), and qSOFA (0.3 ± 0.6 vs. 0.6 ± 0.7, p = 0.007). Regarding mortality risk prediction, the MEDS demonstrated the best predictive power with AUC of ROC measured up to 0.834, followed by NEWS (0.626) and qSOFA (0.608). We revised the MEDS, NEWS, and qSOFA by hemoglobin and lactate. We found that the revised scores had better powerful performance, including 0.859, 0.767, and 0.691 of the AUC of ROC, if the revised MEDS ≥10, revised NEWS ≥8, and revised qSOFA ≥2, respectively.

Conclusions

MEDS, NEWS, and qSOFA were good tools for predicting outcomes in patients with Aeromonas spp. bacteremia. The revised MEDS, NEWS, and qSOFA demonstrated more powerful predicting performance than the original scoring systems. We suggested that patients with higher scores in revised MEDS (≥10), revised NEWS (≥8), and revised qSOFA (≥2) received early goal-directed therapy and appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment as early as possible to reduce mortality.

SUBMITTER: Wen CY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10814924 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Good Performance of Revised Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes of <i>Aeromonas</i> Bacteremia in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Wen Cheng-Yang CY Hu Sung-Yuan SY Hsieh Ming-Shun MS Huang Shih-Che SC Shen Chia-Hui CH Tsai Yi-Chun YC

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 20240105 2

<h4>Background</h4><i>Aeromonas</i> species, Gram-negative, non-sporulating, facultative, and anaerobic bacilli, widely distributed in aquatic environments, derive various infections, including bacteremia. Most of these infections were opportunistic and found in patients with predisposing conditions. Among the infections, bacteremia remains with notable mortality, reported from 15% to 45%. However, predicting systems for assessing the mortality risk of this disease have yet to be investigated. W ...[more]

PMID: 38248001

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p = 0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p = 0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p = 0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p = 0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p = 0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies compared the diagnostic value of procalcitonin with a combination of other tests including lactate and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the prediction of pathogenic bacteremia in emergency department adult patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study assessing the differences in performances of procalcitonin at a cutoff of 0.5 ng/mL, lactate at a cutoff of 19.8 mg/dL, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at a cutoff of 0.8 mg/dL and their combinations for predicting bacteremia in emergency department adult patients. Sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy, positive-test and negative-test likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval for each test combination were calculated for comparison. The receiver operating characteristic curve for every single test were compared using DeLong's method. We also performed a sensitivity analysis in two expanded patient cohorts to assess the discriminative ability of procalcitonin or test combination.ResultsA total of 886 patients formed the initial patient cohort. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discriminating positive blood culture was: procalcitonin = 0.72 (95% CI [0.69-0.75]) with a derived optimal cutoff at 3.9 ng/mL; lactate 0.69 (0.66-0.72) with an optimal cutoff at 17.9 mg/dL; high-sensitivity C-reactive protein 0.56 (0.53-0.59) with an optimal cutoff of 13 mg/dL; with pairwise comparisons showing statistically significant better performance of either procalcitonin or lactate outperforming high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. To predict positive blood cultures, the diagnostic odds ratio for procalcitonin was 3.64 (95% CI [2.46-5.51]), lactate 2.93 (2.09-4.14), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein 0.91 (0.55-1.55; P = 0.79). About combined tests, the diagnostic odds ratio for procalcitonin and lactate increases were 3.98 (95% CI [2.81-5.63]) for positive blood culture prediction. Elevated procalcitonin level rendered a six-fold increased risk of positive gram-negative bacteremia with a diagnostic odds ratio of 6.44 (95% CI [3.65-12.15]), which showed no further improvement in any test combinations. In the sensitivity analysis, as a single test to predict unspecified, gram-negative and gram-positive bacteremia, procalcitonin performed even better in an expanded cohort of 2,234 adult patients in terms of the diagnostic odds ratio.DiscussionsFor adult emergency patients, procalcitonin has an acceptable discriminative ability for bacterial blood culture and a better discriminative ability for gram-negative bacteremia when compared with lactate and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein at a cutoff of 0.8 mg/dL performed poorly for the prediction of positive bacterial culture.