Cited by 128Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentAcute Kidney Injury ResearchInflammation biomarkers and pathways

Sepsis surveillance using adult sepsis events simplified eSOFA criteria versus sepsis-3 sequential organ failure assessment criteria.

Open access
Rhee, Chanu, Zhang, Zilu, Kadri, Sameer S., Murphy, David J., Martin, Greg S., Overton, Elizabeth, Seymour, Christopher W., Angus, Derek C. +6 more·2019·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals’ electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. Patients: Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/μL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach’s alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities. Conclusions: The Adult Sepsis Event’s eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003521

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhee, C., Zhang, Z., Kadri, S. S., Murphy, D. J., Martin, G. S., Overton, E., Seymour, C. W., Angus, D. C., Dantes, R., Epstein, L., Fram, D., Schaaf, R., Wang, R., & Klompas, M.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Commonwealth Informatics, Waltham, MA.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2019-03
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
307-314
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2918426727
Cited by
128
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 13
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U54CK000484)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS025008)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM119519)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
Keywords
sepsis surveillance, Sepsis-3, SOFA score, organ dysfunction, electronic health records, sepsis prevalence, in-hospital mortality, diagnostic agreement, adult sepsis, sepsis definitions, lactate, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, bilirubin
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, Retrospective Studies, United States, Prevalence, Sepsis, Electronic Health Records, Organ Dysfunction Scores

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review