Modified Simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score：a New Scoring System for Sepsis Screening

doi:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.772

Abstract

Abstract: Background　Sepsis is one of the most common critical diseases encountered clinically.Early detection and active treatment are beneficial to improving patient prognosis.Due to the low sensitivity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment（qSOFA） score in sepsis screening，it is necessary to establish a sepsis screening score with high sensitivity and specificity.Objective　To develop a new scoring system for sepsis screening by modifying the simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment（sSOFA） score，namely，Modified simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment（M-sSOFA） score，providing a reference for early detection of sepsis.Methods　The inpatients from the ICU，Huangshan Shoukang Hospital and Huangshan City People's Hospital during March 2015 to February 2018 were recruited for retrospective analysis，including 206（105 with sepsis and 101 without） enrolled during March 2016 to February 2018（M-sSOFA model group），and 106（55 with sepsis and 51 without） enrolled during March 2015 to February 2016（M-sSOFA validation group）.ROC curve analysis was performed to determine the new variables（white blood cell count and oxygenation index） and diagnostic cut-off point of M-sSOFA score，and was applied to measure the accuracy of M-sSOFA score and qSOFA score in screening sepsis.Results　M-sSOFA model group：the sepsis patients（62 males and 43 females） had an average age of（71.1±15.2） years，with an ICU mortality rate of 33.33%（35/105），and the non-sepsis patients（80 males and 21 females） had an average age of（62.2±15.1） years，with an ICU mortality rate of 11.88%（12/101）.The area under the ROC curve（AUC） of M-sSOFA score was biggest〔AUC= 0.806，95%CI（0.743，0.868），P<0.05〕，the sensitivity and specificity were 81.90%，and 79.21%，respectively，when diagnostic cut-off point of M-sSOFA score ≥3（WBC<4×109/L or >10×109/L and oxygen index<450 mm Hg，1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa）.White blood cell count <4×109/L or >10×109/L scored as 1 point and oxygenation index <450 mm Hg scored as 1 point were included in the final M-sSOFA scoring standard.M-sSOFA validation group：the sepsis patients（33 males and 22 females） had an average age of（70.9±14.4） years，with an average M-sSOFA score of 4（range：3，5），an average qSOFA score of 1（range：1，2），and an ICU mortality rate of 38.18%，and the non-sepsis patients（38 males and 13 females） had an average age of（60.5±16.5） years，with an average M-sSOFA score of 1（range：0，2），an average qSOFA score of 0（range：0，1），and an ICU mortality rate of 11.76%.The AUC，sensitivity，specificity and Kappa coefficient of M-sSOFA score in screening sepsis were 0.78，80.00%，76.47%，and 0.56，respectively，and these aforementioned 4 indicators for M-sSOFA score were 0.63，40.00%，86.28%，and 0.26，respectively.The difference in AUC between M-sSOFA score and qSOFA score in screening sepsis was significant（Z=2.751，P=0.006）.Conclusion　M-sSOFA score，a new scoring system for rapid sepsis screening，demonstrated better predictive value for sepsis screening compared to qSOFA score，with an AUC of 0.78，80.00% sensitivity and 76.47% specificity.

Key words: Sepsis, Screening, Score, Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

摘要： 背景　脓毒症是临床常见的危重症之一，早期发现、积极治疗有利于改善患者预后，但目前用于脓毒症筛查的快速序贯器官功能衰竭评分（qSOFA）灵敏度低，因此需要建立一种灵敏度和特异度均较高的脓毒症筛查评分。目的　在简化序贯器官功能衰竭评分（sSOFA）基础上建立一种新的脓毒症快速筛查评分——调整的简化序贯器官功能衰竭评分（M-sSOFA），为早期发现脓毒症提供参考。方法　收集2015年3月—2018年2月黄山首康医院和黄山市人民医院重症医学科（ICU）住院患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析，其中2016年3月—2018年2月符合入选标准的脓毒症患者105例，并选取同期101例符合入选标准的非脓毒症患者，该组病例用于M-sSOFA的建立（即为建模组）；2015年3月—2016年2月符合入选标准的脓毒症患者55例，并选取同期51例符合入选标准的非脓毒症患者，该组病例用于M-sSOFA有效性的验证（即为验证组）。利用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线确定M-sSOFA新变量的取值和筛查脓毒症高危人群的诊断截点。并将新建立的M-sSOFA与qSOFA筛查脓毒症的ROC曲线进行比较。结果　建模组：脓毒症患者中男62例、女43例，平均年龄（71.1±15.2）岁，ICU病死率33.33%（35/105），非脓毒症患者中男80例、女21例，平均年龄（62.2±15.1）岁，ICU病死率11.88%（12/101）。M-sSOFA≥3分时〔即白细胞计数取<4×109/L或>10×109/L、氧合指数取<450 mm Hg（1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa）〕预测脓毒症的ROC曲线下面积（AUC）最大（P<0.05）。M-sSOFA≥3分时预测脓毒症的AUC为0.806〔95%CI（0.743，0.868）〕，灵敏度为81.90%，特异度为79.21%。白细胞计数<4×109/L或>10×109/L为1分和氧合指数<450 mm Hg为1分被纳入最终的M-sSOFA标准。验证组：脓毒症患者中男33例、女22例，平均年龄（70.9±14.4）岁，M-sSOFA 4（3，5）分，qSOFA 1（1，2）分，ICU病死率38.18%；非脓毒症患者中男38例、女13例，平均年龄（60.5±16.5）岁，M-sSOFA 1（0，2）分，qSOFA 0（0，1）分，ICU病死率11.76%。M-sSOFA和qSOFA筛查脓毒症的AUC、灵敏度、特异度和Kappa值分别为0.78与0.63、80.00%与40.00%、76.47%与86.28%、0.56与0.26。M-sSOFA和qSOFA筛查脓毒症的AUC比较，差异有统计学意义（Z=2.751，P=0.006）。结论　新的脓毒症快速筛查评分系统——M-sSOFA筛查脓毒症的效果优于qSOFA，AUC为0.78，灵敏度为80.00%，特异度为76.47%。

关键词: 脓毒症, 筛查, 评分, 快速序贯器官衰竭评分, 简化序贯器官衰竭评分

WANG Zhengguang,YAO Jianhua,CHEN Xiaoyan, et al. Modified Simple Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score：a New Scoring System for Sepsis Screening　[J]. Chinese General Practice, 2020, 23(12): 1480-1485. DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.772.
汪正光,姚建华,陈晓燕等. 一种新的脓毒症快速筛查评分系统：调整的简化序贯器官功能衰竭评分[J]. 中国全科医学, 2020, 23(12): 1480-1485. DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.772.

References

［1］RHODES A，EVANS L E，ALHAZZANI W，et al．Surviving Sepsis campaign：international guidelines for management of Sepsis and septic shock：2016［J］．Intensive Care Med，2017，43（3）：304-377．DOI:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6.
［2］SINGER M，DEUTSCHMAN C S，SEYMOUR C W，et al．The third international consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock（Sepsis-3）［J］．JAMA，2016，315（8）：801-810．DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
［3］SERAFIM R，GOMES J A，SALLUH J，et al．A comparison of the quick-SOFA and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of Sepsis and prediction of mortality：a systematic review and meta-analysis［J］．Chest，2018，153（3）：646-655．DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.015.
［4］DORSETT M，KROLL M，SMITH C S，et al．qSOFA has poor sensitivity for prehospital identification of severe Sepsis and septic shock［J］．Prehosp Emerg Care，2017，21（4）：489-497．DOI:10.1080/10903127.2016.1274348.
［5］GUIRGIS F W，PUSKARICH M A，SMOTHERMAN C，et al．Development of a simple sequential organ failure assessment score for risk assessment of emergency department patients with Sepsis［J］．J Intensive Care Med，2017：885066617741284．DOI:10.1177/0885066617741284.
［6］李颖利，熊辉.qSOFA对急诊感染性疾病患者的预后评估［J］．中国急救医学，2017，37（2）：109-113．DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1949.2017.02.004.
［7］PARK H K，KIM W Y，KIM M C，et al．Quick sequential organ failure assessment compared to systemic inflammatory response syndrome for predicting sepsis in emergency department［J］．J Crit Care，2017，42：12-17．DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.06.020.
［8］汪颖，王迪芬，付江泉，等．SOFA、qSOFA评分和传统指标对脓毒症预后的判断价值［J］．中华危重病急救医学，2017，29（8）：700-704．DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.08.006.
［9］WILLIAMS J M，GREENSLADE J H，MCKENZIE J V，et al．Systemic inflammatory response syndrome，quick sequential organ function assessment，and organ dysfunction：insights from a prospective database of ED patients with infection［J］．Chest，2017，151（3）：586-596．DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.057.
［10］张肖难，张泓.SOFA、qSOFA评分及SIRS标准对急诊疑似感染患者预测价值研究［J］．中华急诊医学杂志，2018，27（3）：259-264．DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2018.03.007.
［11］RAITH E P，UDY A A，BAILEY M，et al．Prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score，SIRS criteria，and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit［J］．JAMA，2017，317（3）：290-300．DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.20328.
［12］王淼，曹书华，王勇强，等．未成熟血小板比率与脓毒症严重程度的相关性研究［J］．中华急诊医学杂志，2018，27（7）：790-793．DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2018.07.016.
［13］王理.GDF-15联合IL-6对脓毒症患者预后的评估价值研究［J］．中国急救医学，2018，38（4）：345-349，封3．DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1949.2018.04.015.
［14］孔夏，张新超.血清可溶性ST2对脓毒症预后的判断价值研究［J］．中华急诊医学杂志，2018，27（4）：394-398．DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2018.04.012.
［15］毛云，盛孝燕，朱红阳，等．血清降钙素原和可溶性髓样细胞触发受体-1及可溶性CD14亚型水平联合预测脓毒症患者28d病死率的价值研究［J］．中国全科医学，2017，20（36）:4494-4500．DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2017.00.177.
［16］SHAPIRO N I，WOLFE R E，MOORE R B，et al．Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis（MEDS） score：a prospectively derived and validated clinical prediction rule［J］．Crit Care Med，2003，31（3）：670-675．DOI:10.1097/01.CCM.0000054867.01688.D1.

[1]	XU Baichuan, WANG Yan, ZHANG Peng, LI Yiting, LIU Feilai, XIE Yang. Research and Analysis of Screening Tools for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Comorbidity Lung Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(30): 3847-3852.
[2]	YU Wenhua, LI Jianguo, DUAN Wenyan, GAO Xuyan, LI Xiaxia, ZHANG Zilong, ZHANG Li, MA Lina. Reliability and Validity of the Function Impairment Screening Tool among Community-dwelling Older Adults [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(24): 3000-3004.
[3]	LI Jiaxin, LIU Zhonghui, XIE Shuo, FU Zhifang, SUN Dan, JIAO Hongmei. Trajectory in Biomarkers of Metabolic and Inflammatory States as Early Predictors of Chronic Critical Illness in Aging Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(24): 2993-2999.
[4]	SHI Jiarui, WANG Zili, ZHANG Xueqing, SONG Yulei, XU Guihua, BAI Yamei. The Current Status of Initial Cognitive Screening Services in Community-based Cognitive Services Centers in Nanjing [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(22): 2784-2790.
[5]	ZHANG Yunjing, SUN Yue, SU Peng, ZHAO Yongbo, MA Dong. Short-term Prognosis of Acute Stanford A Aortic Dissection in Young and Middle-aged Patients Treated with a Hybrid Surgery Versus Sun's Procedure [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(21): 2618-2624.
[6]	FANG Yingying, LIN Weiquan, SUN Minying, LI Yaohui, LIU Lan, YANG Yunou, CHEN Jiamin, LUO Liying, SHI Lei, LIU Hui. Influence of Screen Time on Sleep Quality among Patients with Multimorbidity Aged 35 and Above [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(20): 2501-2507.
[7]	LI Jia, TAN Wenbin. The Dilemma of Prevention and Treatment of Secondary Osteoporosis and Its Countermeasures [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(17): 2075-2081.
[8]	ZHANG Qi, HE Shen, LI Hua. Interpretation of Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement 2022 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(15): 1823-1830.
[9]	ZENG Yongtian, CHEN Riling, NONG Xueyan, LIU Zhou, LIANG Lizhong, ZHU Zijian. Clinical Research Progress and Challenges of Digital Therapeutics from Screening to Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorder [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(14): 1702-1708.
[10]	WU Dadong, LIU Huimin, ZHANG Jiayi, LIU Siyuan, ZHAO Guanglin, JIN Shuyan, JIANG Lei. Application and Evaluation of the Mobile Platform for Perinatal Depression Screening and Intervention [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(14): 1773-1780.
[11]	WANG Dexiang, YUAN Jiawen, LU Qinyun, HANG Yuhao, LU Jun, CHENG Lu. Influences of Treatment Timing of the TCM prescription Qingfei Huayu Tongfu Formula on the Therapeutic Effect and Prognosis of Sepsis-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(12): 1500-1505.
[12]	LI Qiujing, SHANG Na, GAO Qian, YANG Li, GUO Shubin. Predictive Value of Abdominal CT Based-skeletal Muscle Mass Combined with Critical Illness Score for Prognosis in Older Patients with Intra-abdominal Sepsis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(12): 1459-1464.
[13]	CHI Xun, LIU Sisi, CHEN Qiao, HU Yue, WANG Weixian. The Suitability of Four Nutritional Screening Tools for Nutritional Screening in Patients with Cirrhosis: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(11): 1395-1402.
[14]	HUANG Lujie, ZHANG Xiaoying, YU Shasha. Risk Factors, Prognosis and Rapid Screening in Patients with Acute Aortic Dissection Complicated with Type 2 Diabetes [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(09): 1100-1105.
[15]	ZHANG Shaotong, WANG Bo, ZHANG Mingrui, MA Guiyan, LIU Shaoguang. Identification of Sepsis Subphenotypes and Risk Stratification Using the Procalcitonin Trajectory [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(05): 594-600.