| dc.description.abstract | Background
SIRS and qSOFA are two ancillary scoring tools that have been used globally, inside and outside of ICU to predict adverse outcomes of infections such as secondary peritonitis. Mulago hospital uses SIRS outside the ICU to identify patients with secondary peritonitis, who are at risk of adverse outcomes. However it’s associated with delays in decision making given its partial reliance on laboratory parameters. In response to the practical limitations of SIRS, the sepsis-3 task force recommends qSOFA as a better tool, however its performance in patients with secondary peritonitis in comparison to that of SIRS had never been evaluated in Mulago hospital, Uganda.
Objective: To compare the performance of qSOFA and SIRS scores in predicting adverse outcomes of secondary peritonitis in Mulago hospital, Uganda.
Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients with clinically confirmed secondary peritonitis, from March 2018 to January 2019 at the A&E, Mulago hospital. QSOFA and SIRS scores were generated for each of the patient, with a score of ≥ 2 recorded as high risk, while a score of < 2 recorded as low risk for the adverse outcome respectively. After surgery, patients were followed up until discharge or death. In-hospital mortality and prolonged hospital stay were the primary and secondary adverse outcomes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy at 95% confidence interval were calculated for each of the scores using STATA v.13
Results: A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Of these, 151(M: F, 2.4:1) completed follow up and were analysed, 2 were excluded. Mortality rate was 11.9%. Fourty (26.5%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay. QSOFA predicted in-hospital mortality with AUROC of 0.52 versus 0.62, for SIRS. Similarly, qSOFA predicted prolonged hospital stay with AUROC of 0.54 versus 0.57, for SIRS.
Conclusion: SIRS is superior to qSOFA in predicting both mortality and prolonged hospital stay among patients with secondary peritonitis. However, overall, both scores showed a poor discrimination for both adverse outcomes and therefore not ideal tools.
Key words: Secondary peritonitis, Adverse outcomes, qSOFA, SIRS | en_US |
