Volume 14, Issue 8 p. 709-714
Free Access

Performance of Severity of Illness Scoring Systems in Emergency Department Patients with Infection

Michael D. Howell MD

Corresponding Author

Michael D. Howell MD

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Contact for correspondence and reprints: Michael D. Howell, MD (Email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this author
Michael W. Donnino MD

Michael W. Donnino MD

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Search for more papers by this author
Daniel Talmor MD

Daniel Talmor MD

Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Search for more papers by this author
Peter Clardy MD

Peter Clardy MD

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Search for more papers by this author
Long Ngo PhD

Long Ngo PhD

Department of Medicine Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Search for more papers by this author
Nathan I. Shapiro MD, MPH

Nathan I. Shapiro MD, MPH

Department of Emergency Medicine Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 28 June 2008
Citations: 76

Abstract

ObjectivesTo validate the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score, the Confusion, Urea nitrogen, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, 65 years of age and older (CURB-65) score, and a modified Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (mREMS) in patients with suspected infection.

MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study. Adult patients with clinically suspected infection admitted from December 10, 2003, to September 30, 2004, in an urban emergency department with approximately 50,000 annual visits were eligible. The MEDS and CURB-65 scores were calculated as originally described, but REMS was modified in neurologic scoring because a full Glasgow Coma Scale score was not uniformly available. Discrimination of each score was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC).

ResultsOf 2,132 patients, 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.1% to 4.7%) died. Mortality stratified by the MEDS score was as follows: 0–4 points, 0.4% (95% CI = 0.0 to 0.7%); 5–7 points, 3.3% (95% CI = 1.7% to 4.9%); 8–12 points, 6.6% (95% CI = 4.4% to 8.8%); and ≥13 points, 31.6% (95% CI = 22.4% to 40.8%). Mortality stratified by CURB-65 was as follows: 0 points, 0% (0 of 457 patients); 1 point, 1.6% (95% CI = 0.6% to 2.6%); 2 points, 4.1% (95% CI = 2.3% to 6.0%); 3 points, 4.9% (95% CI = 2.8% to 6.9%); 4 points, 18.1% (95% CI = 11.9% to 24.3%); and 5 points, 28.0% (95% CI = 10.4% to 45.6%). Mortality stratified by the mREMS was as follows: 0–2 points, 0.6% (95% CI = 0 to 1.2%); 3–5 points, 2.0% (95% CI = 0.8% to 3.1%); 6–8 points, 2.3% (95% CI = 1.1% to 3.5%); 9–11 points, 7.1% (95% CI = 4.2% to 10.1%); 12–14 points, 20.0% (95% CI = 12.5% to 27.5%); and ≥15 points, 40.0% (95% CI = 22.5% to 57.5%). The AUCs were 0.85, 0.80, and 0.79 for MEDS, mREMS, and CURB-65, respectively.

ConclusionsIn this large cohort of patients with clinically suspected infection, MEDS, mREMS, and CURB-65 all correlated well with 28-day in-hospital mortality.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.