Article Text

Download PDFPDF

The REDS score: a new scoring system to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis: a derivation and validation study
  1. Narani Sivayoham1,
  2. Lesley A Blake1,
  3. Shafi E Tharimoopantavida1,
  4. Saad Chughtai1,
  5. Adil N Hussain1,
  6. Maurizio Cecconi2,
  7. Andrew Rhodes3
  1. 1Emergency Department, St Goerge's University Hospitals NHS FT, London, UK
  2. 2Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Humanitas Research Hospital and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
  3. 3Adult Intensive Care Unit, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and St George’s University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Narani Sivayoham; Narani.Sivayoham{at}stgeorges.nhs.uk

Abstract

Objective To derive and validate a new clinical prediction rule to risk-stratify emergency department (ED) patients admitted with suspected sepsis.

Design Retrospective prognostic study of prospectively collected data.

Setting ED.

Participants Patients aged ≥18 years who met two Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria or one Red Flag sepsis criteria on arrival, received intravenous antibiotics for a suspected infection and admitted.

Primary outcome measure In-hospital all-cause mortality.

Method The data were divided into derivation and validation cohorts. The simplified-Mortality in Severe Sepsis in the ED score and quick-SOFA scores, refractory hypotension and lactate were collectively termed ‘component scores’ and cumulatively termed the ‘Risk-stratification of ED suspected Sepsis (REDS) score’. Each patient in the derivation cohort received a score (0–3) for each component score. The REDS score ranged from 0 to 12. The component scores were subject to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the REDS and the components scores were constructed and their cut-off points identified. Scores above the cut-off points were deemed high-risk. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves and sensitivity for mortality of the high-risk category of the REDS score and component scores were compared. The REDS score was internally validated.

Results 2115 patients of whom 282 (13.3%) died in hospital. Derivation cohort: 1078 patients with 140 deaths (13%). The AUROC curve with 95% CI, cut-off point and sensitivity for mortality (95% CI) of the high-risk category of the REDS score were: derivation: 0.78 (0.75 to 0.80); ≥3; 85.0 (78 to 90.5). Validation: 0.74 (0.71 to 0.76); ≥3; 84.5 (77.5 to 90.0). The AUROC curve and the sensitivity for mortality of the REDS score was better than that of the component scores. Specificity and mortality rates for REDS scores of ≥3, ≥5 and ≥7 were 54.8%, 88.8% and 96.9% and 21.8%, 36.0% and 49.1%, respectively.

Conclusion The REDS score is a simple and objective score to risk-stratify ED patients with suspected sepsis.

  • clinical prediction rule
  • lactate
  • sepsis

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors NS, LAB, SET and SC: gathering of data, analysis, interpretation and writing of the manuscript. ANH, MC and AR: analysis, interpretation and writing of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was deemed to be a service evaluation of routinely collected data and therefore ethics approval was not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.