Objective: There are many different methods for computing the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score. We compared three PIRO methods (PIRO1 (Howell), PIRO2 (Rubulotta) and PIRO3 (Rathour)) for the stratification of mortality and high level of care admission in septic patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) of an Italian Hospital. Design, setting and participants: We prospectively collected clinical data of 470 patients admitted due to infection in the ED to compute PIRO according to three different methods. We tested PIRO variables for the prediction of mortality in the univariate analysis. Calculation and comparison were made of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the three PIRO methods, SOFA and qSOFA. Results: Most of the variables included in PIRO were related to mortality in the univariate analysis. Increased PIRO scores were related to higher mortality. In relation to mortality, PIRO 1 performed better than PIRO2 at 30 d ((AUC 0.77 (0.716–0.824) vs. AUC 0.699 (0.64–0.758) (p = 0.03) and similarly at 60 d (AUC 0.767 (0.715–0.819) vs AUC 0.709 (0.656–0.763)(p = 0.55)); PIRO1 performed similarly to PIRO3 (AUC 0.765 (0.71–0.82) at 30 d, AUC 0.754 (0.701–0.806) at 60 d, p = ns). Both PIRO1 and PIRO3 were as good as SOFA referred to mortality (AUC 0.758 (0.699, 0.816) at 30 d vs. AUC 0.738 (0.681, 0.795) at 60 d; p = ns). For high level of care admission, PIRO proved inferior to SOFA. Conclusions: We support the use of PIRO1, which combines ease of use and the best performance referred to mortality over the short term. PIRO2 proved to be less accurate and more complex to use, suffering from missing microbiological data in the ED setting.
Validation of the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score for the prognostic stratification of patients with sepsis in the Emergency Department
Caramello V.;Macciotta A.;Beux V.;Ricceri F.;Boccuzzi A.
2021-01-01
Abstract
Objective: There are many different methods for computing the Predisposition Infection Response Organ (PIRO) dysfunction score. We compared three PIRO methods (PIRO1 (Howell), PIRO2 (Rubulotta) and PIRO3 (Rathour)) for the stratification of mortality and high level of care admission in septic patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) of an Italian Hospital. Design, setting and participants: We prospectively collected clinical data of 470 patients admitted due to infection in the ED to compute PIRO according to three different methods. We tested PIRO variables for the prediction of mortality in the univariate analysis. Calculation and comparison were made of the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the three PIRO methods, SOFA and qSOFA. Results: Most of the variables included in PIRO were related to mortality in the univariate analysis. Increased PIRO scores were related to higher mortality. In relation to mortality, PIRO 1 performed better than PIRO2 at 30 d ((AUC 0.77 (0.716–0.824) vs. AUC 0.699 (0.64–0.758) (p = 0.03) and similarly at 60 d (AUC 0.767 (0.715–0.819) vs AUC 0.709 (0.656–0.763)(p = 0.55)); PIRO1 performed similarly to PIRO3 (AUC 0.765 (0.71–0.82) at 30 d, AUC 0.754 (0.701–0.806) at 60 d, p = ns). Both PIRO1 and PIRO3 were as good as SOFA referred to mortality (AUC 0.758 (0.699, 0.816) at 30 d vs. AUC 0.738 (0.681, 0.795) at 60 d; p = ns). For high level of care admission, PIRO proved inferior to SOFA. Conclusions: We support the use of PIRO1, which combines ease of use and the best performance referred to mortality over the short term. PIRO2 proved to be less accurate and more complex to use, suffering from missing microbiological data in the ED setting.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
