Validation of Sepsis-3 using survival analysis and clinical evaluation of quick SOFA, SIRS, and burn-specific SIRS for sepsis in burn patients with suspected infection.

purposeSepsis-3 is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host responses to infection; and defined using the Sepsis-3 criteria, introduced in 2016, however, the criteria need to be validated in specific clinical fields. We investigated mortality prediction and compared the diagnostic performance of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and burn-specific SIRS (bSIRS) in burn patients.

methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study examined burn patients in Seoul, Korea during January 2010-December 2020. Overall, 1,391 patients with suspected infection were divided into four sepsis groups using SOFA, qSOFA, SIRS, and burn-specific SIRS.

resultsHazard ratios (HRs) of all unadjusted models were statistically significant; however, the HR (0.726, p = 0.0080.001) in the SIRS ≥2 group is below 1. In the adjusted model, HRs of the SOFA ≥2 (2.426, <0.001), qSOFA ≥2 (7.198, p<0.001), and SIRS ≥2 (0.575, p<0.001) groups were significant. The diagnostic performance of dichotomized qSOFA, SIRS, and bSIRS for sepsis was defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria. The mean onset day was 4.13±2.97 according to Sepsis-3. The sensitivity of SIRS (0.989, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.982-0.994) was higher than that of qSOFA (0.841, 95% CI: 0.819-0.861) and bSIRS (0.803, 95% CI: 0.779-0.825). Specificities of qSOFA (0.929, 95% CI: 0.876-0.964) and bSIRS (0.922, 95% CI: 0.868-0.959) were higher than those of SIRS (0.461, 95% CI: 0.381-0.543).

conclusionSepsis-3 is a good alternative diagnostic tool because it reflects sepsis severity without delaying diagnosis. SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA and bSIRS and may therefore more adequately diagnose sepsis.