Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Recognizing the high-risk patients with sepsis on time: MEWS, qSOFA or SIRS?

Biljana Joveš, Dusanka Obradovic, Jovan Matijasevic, Stanislava Sovilj-Gmizic, Ivana Vujovic
European Respiratory Journal 2019 54: PA4008; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA4008
Biljana Joveš
1Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bjovess@yahoo.com
Dusanka Obradovic
1Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jovan Matijasevic
1Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stanislava Sovilj-Gmizic
2Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Republic of Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivana Vujovic
2Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Republic of Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: The third international consensus definition for sepsis introduced quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score to help recognize patients with sepsis who should be treated in ICU. Goals: To compare triaging value of two widely used scores: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) with qSOFA.

Methods: Retrospective observational study at Vojvodina Institute for Pulmonary Diseases included 209 patients with sepsis treated at High Dependency Unit between January 2015 and November 2018. We recorded: sex, age, heart and respiratory rate, GCS, blood pressure, temperature, urine output, MEWS, qSOFA and SIRS. The accuracy of these three scores - qSOFA, SIRS and MEWS was then compared for mortality prediction.

Results: Out of 209 patients, 141 (67.5%) were male. Mean age was 60.1 (SD±15.08). Intrahospital mortality was 45.9%. MEWS had the highest discrimination for intrahospital mortality (AUC 0.69; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.76), followed by qSOFA (AUC 0.65; CI 0.58 to 0.71) and SIRS (AUC 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64). SIRS had the highest sensitivity (68.75% CI 58.5 – 77.8%), followed by MEWS ≥5 (52.08%, CI 41.6-62.4%), and qSOFA (22.91%, CI 15.0–32.6%). The specificity of qSOFA with 89.38% (CI 82.2 – 94.4%) was similar to MEWS (87.61%, CI 80.1 – 93.1%), followed by SIRS (46.02%, CI 36.6 – 55.6%).

Conclusion: MEWS had the highest overall accuracy, followed by qSOFA. However, SIRS score had the highest sensitivity in identifying septic patients with high risk of intra-hospital mortality. qSOFA sensitivity is worryingly low, which questions its value in timely recognition of high-risk patients with sepsis, which is a time-critical condition.

  • Critically ill patients
  • Monitoring
  • Sepsis

Footnotes

Cite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2019; 54: Suppl. 63, PA4008.

This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).

  • Copyright ©the authors 2019
Previous
Back to top
Vol 54 Issue suppl 63 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Recognizing the high-risk patients with sepsis on time: MEWS, qSOFA or SIRS?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Recognizing the high-risk patients with sepsis on time: MEWS, qSOFA or SIRS?
Biljana Joveš, Dusanka Obradovic, Jovan Matijasevic, Stanislava Sovilj-Gmizic, Ivana Vujovic
European Respiratory Journal Sep 2019, 54 (suppl 63) PA4008; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA4008

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Recognizing the high-risk patients with sepsis on time: MEWS, qSOFA or SIRS?
Biljana Joveš, Dusanka Obradovic, Jovan Matijasevic, Stanislava Sovilj-Gmizic, Ivana Vujovic
European Respiratory Journal Sep 2019, 54 (suppl 63) PA4008; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA4008
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump To

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Late Breaking Abstract - Temporary Transvenous Diaphragm Neurostimulation in difficult-to-wean mechanically ventilated patients - Results of the RESCUE 2 randomized controlled trial
  • Late Breaking Abstract - Positive end-expiratory pressure affects geometry and function of the human diaphragm
  • Risk factors of reintubation in patients receiving post-extubation nasal high flow therapy
Show more Acute critical care

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society