Comparative analysis of Glasgow Coma Scale, quick Sepsis‑related Organ Failure Assessment, base excess, and lactate for mortality prediction in critically ill emergency department patients
Gürbüz Meral1
, Şenol Ardıç2, Serkan Günay1, Kadir Güzel3, Ahmet Köse4, Hülya Gençbay Durmuş5, Serhat Uysal6, Aydın Coşkun7
1Department of Emergency Service, Hitit University, Erol Olcok Training and Research Hospital, Corum, Turkey
2Department of Emergency Service, University of Health Sciences, Trabzon Kanuni Training and Research Hospital, Trabzon, Turkey
3Department of Emergency Service, Konya Aksehir State Hospital, Konya, Turkey
4Department of Emergency Service, Gumushane State Hospital, Gumushane, Turkey
5Department of Emergency Service, Trabzon Fatih State Hospital, Trabzon, Turkey
6Department of İnfectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
7Department of Emergency Service, Sivas Numune Hospital, Sivas, Turkey
Keywords: Base excess, Glasgow Coma Scale, lactate, quick Sepsis‑related Organ Failure Assessment
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: It is crucial to promptly identify high mortality patients in emergency departments and initiate their treatment as soon as possible. Although many parameters have been studied to select patients with high mortality, no comprehensive evaluation exists in previous literature on these parameters in critically ill patients, regardless of patient groups. The aim of this study is to evaluate the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), blood gas base excess (BE), and blood gas lactate in predicting mortality in critically ill patients admitted to the emergency department.
METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included adult patients with Emergency Severity Index 1–2 (critically ill) admitted to the emergency department. All patients were evaluated by the physician within 10 min, and blood gas samples were taken. The data collection forms recorded the patients’ GCS and qSOFA scores at the time of first evaluation by the physician. The qSOFA score assessment was performed in all patients with ESI levels 1 and 2, regardless of whether infective pathology was suspected. Blood gas BE and lactate values were also from laboratory test results. Patients or their relatives were contacted by phone at the end of the 1st month to obtain information about the clinical condition (survival or mortality).
RESULTS: A total of 868 patients were included, with 163 deaths observed within 30 days. GCS score, qSOFA score, and lactate value were significant in predicting mortality within 30 days. While the BE value was significant for predicting 30 day mortality for values equal to or below the lower limit of −1.5 (P< 0.001), it was not significant for values equal to or above the upper limit of +3 (P > 0.05). The most successful prediction model for predicting 30 day mortality was found to be qSOFA with a cutoff value of ≥1.
CONCLUSION: In emergency departments, each of the GCS, qSOFA scores, BE, and lactate values can be used independently as a practical mortality prediction model in critically ill patients. Among these four models, qSOFA is the most successful practical mortality prediction model in critically ill patients.
How to cite this article: Meral G, Ardıç Ş, Günay S, Güzel K, Köse A, Durmus HG, et al. Comparative analysis of Glasgow Coma Scale, quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment, base excess, and lactate for mortality prediction in critically ill emergency department patients. Turk J Emerg Med 2024;24(4):231-7.
Our study was produced from a medical specialization thesis that was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Health Sciences University Trabzon Kanuni Training and Research Hospital on May 9, 2018, with the decision number 2018/18.
Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfill the criteria below:
GM: Conceptualization (equal); Data Curation (lead); Formal Analysis (lead); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Project Administration (lead); Resources (lead); Supervision (lead); Validation (lead); Visualization (lead); Writing – Original Draft (lead); Writing – Review and Editing (lead). ŞA: Conceptualization (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Project Administration (lead); Supervision (supporting); Visualization (supporting); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). SG: Conceptualization (equal); Data Curation (supporting); Formal Analysis (supporting); Resources (supporting); Software (lead); Supervision (equal); Visualization (supporting); Writing – Original Draft (supporting); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). KG: Data Curation (supporting); Formal Analysis (supporting); Supervision (equal); Writing – Original Draft (supporting); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). AK: Data Curation (supporting) (supporting); Formal Analysis (supporting); Validation (equal); Writing – Original Draft (equal); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). HGD: Data Curation (supporting); Formal Analysis (supporting); Writing – Original Draft (equal); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). SU: Data Curation (supporting); Formal Analysis (supporting); Writing – Original Draft (equal); Writing – Review and Editing (equal). AC: Data Curation (supporting); Formal Analysis (equal); Writing – Original Draft (equal); Writing – Review and Editing (equal).
None declared.
None.