The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.
TL;DR: The ESICM developed a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortali ty in the critically ill patient. Emerging in the 1970s, the concept of MOF was linked to modern developments in intensive care medicine [1]. Although an uncontrolled infection can lead to MOF [2], such a phenomenon is not always found. A number of mediators and the persistence of tissue hypoxia have been incriminated in the development of MOF [3]. The gut has been cited as a possible \"moto r \" of MOF [4]. Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of MOF remains limited. Furthermore, the development of new therapeutic interventions aiming at a reduction of the incidence and severity of organ failure calls for a better definition of the severity of organ dysfunction/failure to quantify the severity of illness. Accordingly, it is important to set some simple but objective criteria to define the degree of organ dysfunction/failure. The evolution of our knowledge of organ dysfunction/failure led us to establish several principles: 1. Organ dysfunction/failure is a process rather than an event. Hence, it should be seen as a continuum and should not be described simply as \"present\" or \"absent~' Hence, the assessment should be based on a scale. 2. The time factor is fundamental for several reasons: (a) Development and similarly resolution of organ failure may take some time. Patients dying early may not have time to develop organ dysfunction/failure. (b) The time course of organ dysfunction/failure can be mult imodal during a complex clinical course, what is sometimes referred to as a \"multiple-hit\" scenario. (c) Time evaluation allows a greater understanding of the disease process as a natural process or under the influence of therapeutic interventions. The collection of data on a daily basis seems adequate. 3. The evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure should be based on a limited number of simple but objective variables that are easily and routinely measured in every institution. The collection of this information should not impose any intervention beyond what is routinely performed in every ICU. The variables used should as much as possible be independent of therapy, since therapeutic management may vary from one institution to another and even from one patient to another (Table 1). Until recently, none of the existing systems describing organ failure met these criteria, since they were based on categorial definitions or described organ failure as present or absent [5-7] . The ESICM organized a consensus meeting in Paris in October 1994 to create a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients (Fig. 1). There are two major applications of such a SOFA score: 1. To improve our Understanding of the natural history of organ dysfunction/failure and the interrelation between the failure of the various organs.
Citations
More filters
••
Mervyn Singer1, Clifford S. Deutschman2, Christopher W. Seymour3, Manu Shankar-Hari4, Djillali Annane, Michael Bauer, Rinaldo Bellomo5, Gordon R. Bernard6, Jean-Daniel Chiche, Craig M. Coopersmith7, Richard S. Hotchkiss8, Mitchell M. Levy9, John C. Marshall10, Greg S. Martin7, Steven M. Opal9, Gordon D. Rubenfeld11, Gordon D. Rubenfeld10, Tom van der Poll, Jean Louis Vincent, Derek C. Angus3 •
University College London1, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research2, University of Pittsburgh3, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust4, Monash University5, Vanderbilt University6, Emory University7, Washington University in St. Louis8, Brown University9, University of Toronto10, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre11
TL;DR: The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant and updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsi or at risk of developing sepsic shock.
Abstract: Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.
14,699 citations
••
TL;DR: Severe sepsis is a common, expensive, and frequently fatal condition, with as many deaths annually as those from acute myocardial infarction, and is especially common in the elderly and is likely to increase substantially as the U.S. population ages.
Abstract: ObjectiveTo determine the incidence, cost, and outcome of severe sepsis in the United States.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingAll nonfederal hospitals (n = 847) in seven U.S. states.PatientsAll patients (n = 192,980) meeting criteria for severe sepsis based on the International Classification
7,888 citations
••
TL;DR: This document reflects a process whereby a group of experts and opinion leaders revisited the 1992 sepsis guidelines and found that apart from expanding the list of signs and symptoms of sepsi to reflect clinical bedside experience, no evidence exists to support a change to the definitions.
Abstract: Objective: In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a "Consensus Conference", the goals of which were to provide a conceptual and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive inju- rious process that falls under the gen- eralized term 'sepsis' and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well. The general definitions intro- duced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice, and have served as the foundation for in- clusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impe- tus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes. Design: Several North American and European inten- sive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related con- ditions. This conference was spon- sored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), The European So-
5,298 citations
••
TL;DR: A hypothetical model for staging sepsis is presented, which, in the future, may better characterize the syndrome on the basis of predisposing factors and premorbid conditions, the nature of the underlying infection, the characteristics of the host response, and the extent of the resultant organ dysfunction.
Abstract: In 1991, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) convened a "Consensus Conference," the goals of which were to "provide a conceptual and a practical framework to define the systemic inflammatory response to infection, which is a progressive injurious process that falls under the generalized term 'sepsis' and includes sepsis-associated organ dysfunction as well. The general definitions introduced as a result of that conference have been widely used in practice, and have served as the foundation for inclusion criteria for numerous clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, there has been an impetus from experts in the field to modify these definitions to reflect our current understanding of the pathophysiology of these syndromes. Several North American and European intensive care societies agreed to revisit the definitions for sepsis and related conditions. This conference was sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS). 29 participants attended the conference from Europe and North America. In advance of the conference, subgroups were formed to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiologic data, and coagulation parameters.. The present manuscript serves as the final report of the 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference. 1. Current concepts of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock remain useful to clinicians and researchers. 2. These definitions do not allow precise staging or prognostication of the host response to infection. 3. While SIRS remains a useful concept, the diagnostic criteria for SIRS published in 1992 are overly sensitive and non-specific. 4. An expanded list of signs and symptoms of sepsis may better reflect the clinical response to infection. 6. PIRO, a hypothetical model for staging sepsis is presented, which, in the future, may better characterize the syndrome on the basis of predisposing factors and premorbid conditions, the nature of the underlying infection, the characteristics of the host response, and the extent of the resultant organ dysfunction.
4,432 citations
••
TL;DR: This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria and should encourage widespread adoption.
Abstract: Background and objective The Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis enabled standardised reporting of research and aided communication between clinicians. Deficiencies identified and improved understanding of the disease make a revision necessary. Methods A web-based consultation was undertaken in 2007 to ensure wide participation of pancreatologists. After an initial meeting, the Working Group sent a draft document to 11 national and international pancreatic associations. This working draft was forwarded to all members. Revisions were made in response to comments, and the web-based consultation was repeated three times. The final consensus was reviewed, and only statements based on published evidence were retained. Results The revised classification of acute pancreatitis identified two phases of the disease: early and late. Severity is classified as mild, moderate or severe. Mild acute pancreatitis, the most common form, has no organ failure, local or systemic complications and usually resolves in the first week. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is defined by the presence of transient organ failure, local complications or exacerbation of co-morbid disease. Severe acute pancreatitis is defined by persistent organ failure, that is, organ failure >48 h. Local complications are peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (sterile or infected). We present a standardised template for reporting CT images. Conclusions This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria. The wide consultation among pancreatologists to reach this consensus should encourage widespread adoption.
3,415 citations
References
More filters
••
TL;DR: This multiple organ dysfunction score, constructed using simple physiologic measures of dysfunction in six organ systems, mirrors organ dysfunction as the intensivist sees it and correlates strongly with the ultimate risk of ICU mortality and hospital mortality.
Abstract: ObjectiveTo develop an objective scale to measure the severity of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome as an outcome in critical illness.DesignSystematic literature review; prospective cohort study.SettingSurgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary-level teaching hospital.PatientsAll patient
2,443 citations
••
TL;DR: The goals of this review are to integrate the vast amount of new information on the basic biology of MOF and to focus special attention on the potential therapeutic consequences of these recent advances in the authors' understanding of this complex and perplexing syndrome.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) has reached epidemic proportions in most intensive care units and is fast becoming the most common cause of death in the surgical intensive care unit. Furthermore, in spite of the development of successive generations of new and more powerful antibiotics and increasing sophisticated techniques of organ support, our ability to salvage patients once MOF has become established has not appreciably improved over the last two decades. Clearly, new therapeutic strategies aimed at preventing or limiting the development of the physiologic abnormalities that induce organ failure are needed to improve survival in these critically ill patients. Based on our rapidly increasing knowledge of the mechanisms of MOF and the fruits of molecular biology, a number of new therapeutic approaches are in various stages of development. To effectively use these new therapeutic options as they become available, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the pathophysiology of MOF. Thus, the goals of this review are to integrate the vast amount of new information on the basic biology of MOF and to focus special attention on the potential therapeutic consequences of these recent advances in our understanding of this complex and perplexing syndrome.
1,243 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that sepsis is probably not the essential cause of MOF, and an alternative hypothesis is presented involving massive activation of inflammatory mediators by severe tissue trauma or intra-abdominal sepsi, resulting in systemic damage to vascular endothelia, permeability edema, and impaired oxygen availability to the mitochondria despite adequate arterial oxygen transport.
Abstract: • As multiple-organ failure (MOF) has been generally associated with sepsis, the importance of bacterial sepsis was evaluated retrospectively in 55 trauma and 37 intra-abdominal—sepsis patients with MOF. The severity of MOF was graded, and an analysis was made of day of onset, incidence, severity, sequence, and mortality of organ failures. No difference was found between groups in sequence, severity, or mortality of organ failures. In contrast, bacterial sepsis was found in 65% of intra-abdominal—sepsis patients but only in 33% of trauma patients. It is concluded that sepsis is probably not the essential cause of MOF. Instead, an alternative hypothesis is presented involving massive activation of inflammatory mediators by severe tissue trauma or intra-abdominal sepsis, resulting in systemic damage to vascular endothelia, permeability edema, and impaired oxygen availability to the mitochondria despite adequate arterial oxygen transport. (Arch Surg1985;120:1109-1115)
1,072 citations
••
TL;DR: The high death rates associated with acute OSF and the rapidity with which mortality increases over time are emphasized and reference data for physicians treating similar patients are provided.
Abstract: This prospective study describes the current prognosis of patients in acute Organ System Failure (OSF). Objective definitions were developed for five OSFs, and then 5677 ICU admissions from 13 hospitals were monitored. The number and duration of OSF were linked to outcome at hospital discharge for each of the 2719 ICU patients (48%) who developed OSF. For all medical and most surgical admissions, a single OSF lasting more than 1 day resulted in a mortality rate approaching 40%. Among both medical and surgical patients, two OSFs for more than 1 day increased death rates to 60%. Advanced chronologic age increased both the probability of developing OSF and the probability of death once OSF occurred. Mortality for 99 patients with three or more OSFs persisting after 3 days was 98%. The two patients who survived were both young, in prior excellent health, and had severe but limited primary diseases. These results emphasize the high death rates associated with acute OSF and the rapidity with which mortality increases over time. The prognostic estimates provide reference data for physicians treating similar patients.
1,045 citations
•
TL;DR: Scientific, social, moral, ethical and legal factors emphasize the need to establish a statistically valid large data base concerning this new man-made syndrome which has both important scientific and social implications and this study is a first step in this direction.
Abstract: Forty-two postoperative patients, each with demonstrable failure of two or more vital organ systems, have been studied as they define a syndrome of multiple organ failure. They typify the emerging clinical entity of patients kept alive solely by reason of specific mechanical and pharmacologic support. Trauma initiated hospitalization in 40 per cent and major bleeding, in 11 per cent. Sepsis was judged to be of etiologic significance in 69 per cent. Complications in clinical management were, in retrospect, thought to be of contributory etiologic significance in 57 per cent. Twenty-nine of 42 patients died; a mortality of 69 per cent. Mean duration of multiple organ failure was 30.5 days. Hospital cost, omitting the physician's fees, was conservatively estimated at $700 per day. Scientific, social, moral, ethical and legal factors emphasize the need to establish a statistically valid large data base concerning this new man-made syndrome which has both important scientific and social implications. This study is a first step in this direction.
923 citations
Related Papers (5)
Mervyn Singer, Clifford S. Deutschman, Christopher W. Seymour, Manu Shankar-Hari, Djillali Annane, Michael Bauer, Rinaldo Bellomo, Gordon R. Bernard, Jean-Daniel Chiche, Craig M. Coopersmith, Richard S. Hotchkiss, Mitchell M. Levy, John C. Marshall, Greg S. Martin, Steven M. Opal, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Tom van der Poll, Jean Louis Vincent, Derek C. Angus
R. P. Dellinger, Mitchell M. Levy, Andrew Rhodes, Djillali Annane, Herwig Gerlach, Steven M. Opal, Jonathan E. Sevransky, Charles L. Sprung, Ivor S. Douglas, Roman Jaeschke, Tiffany M. Osborn, Mark E. Nunnally, Konrad Reinhart, Ruth M. Kleinpell, Derek C. Angus, Clifford S. Deutschman, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Steven A R Webb, Richard Beale, Jean Louis Vincent, Rui Moreno