Prediction of Mortality in Sepsis using Rapid Emergency Medicine Score: A Cohort Study

Abstract

Introduction: Organ dysfunction due to sepsis is manifested as acute rise of 2 points in quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score from baseline, which is assessed by: 1) Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) ≤100 mmHg; 2) Respiration Rate (RR) ≥22/min; 3) altered mentation, each having one point. For timely and specific management, an early diagnosis and stratification of severity of the sepsis is important. To predict the outcome of sepsis many scoring systems like SOFA, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Mortality Prediction Model (MPM) have been developed. REMS is simple and feasible scoring system comprising of simple variables like, age in years, Pulse Rate (PR), RR, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and SpO2 estimation. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of REMS score and to validate its utility in patients with sepsis to predict mortality. Materials and Methods: This was an observational, cohort study conducted in the Department of Medicine of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. A total of 100 patients of sepsis admitted to medical wards and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Medicine department were included in the study. Vital parameters like PR, SBP, RR, GCS, SpO2 were noted. REMS score was calculated for patients with sepsis and septic shock, among survivors and non survivors. Primary outcome was either death or discharged. The observed data was statistically analysed for utility of REMS score in predicting mortality, which is the secondary outcome of the study. Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing normally and non-normally distributed data respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was done for all parameters in REMS. Results: The average age of the patients was 49 years (SD 14.5) with males and females almost equally distributed. Major source of infection were pneumonia (24%) followed by urinary tract infections (19%). REMS score was calculated on the day of admission of all 100 patients. It clearly distinguished survivors from non survivors (p<0.001). The median value of REMS among non survivors was 9 (7-10), which was highly significant compared to survivors; median value of REMS among survivors was 3.5 (2-5). REMS score was high among patients with septic shock than patients with sepsis {median REMS: 9 (7-10.5) vs. 4 (2-5.75); p<0.001}. All the variables in REMS were significantly associated with mortality, however with multivariate analysis only the RR was independent predictor of mortality. REMS at cut-off score 7 has sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 88.2%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 70%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 95.7%, and accuracy of REMS was 88%. Conclusion: REMS score showed a significant difference among survivors and non survivors with higher score predicting higher mortality. Hence, REMS is a valid scoring system that can be used in resource limited emergency departments to predict the mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock.