Quick-SOFA score ≥ 2 predicts prolonged hospital stay in geriatric patients with influenza infection

7Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score was designed to predict mortality among sepsis patients. However, it has never been used to identify prolonged length of hospital stay (pLOS) in geriatric patients with influenza infection. We conducted this study to clarify this issue. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study, including geriatric patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with influenza infection visiting the emergency department (ED) of a medical center between January 01, 2010 and December 31, 2015. The included patients were divided into two groups on the basis of their qSOFA score: qSOFA < 2, and qSOFA ≥ 2. Data regarding demographics, vital signs, qSOFA score, underlying diseases, subtypes of influenza, and outcomes were included in the analysis. We investigated the association between qSOFA score ≥ 2 and pLOS (>9 days) via logistic regression. Results: Four hundred and nine geriatric patients were included in this study with a mean age of 79.5 (standard deviation [SD], 8.3) years. The median length of stay (LOS) was 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–12) days, while the rate of pLOS (> 9 days) was 32%. The median LOS in the qSOFA ≥ 2 group, 11.0 (7–15) days, was longer than the qSOFA < 2 group, 6.0 (4–10) days (p-value <0.01). Logistic regression showed that qSOFA ≥ 2 predicts pLOS with an odds ratio of 3.78 (95% confidence interval, 2.04–6.97). Conclusion: qSOFA score ≥ 2 is a prompt and simple tool to predict pLOS in geriatric patients with influenza infection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yeh, C. C., Chen, Y. A., Hsu, C. C., Chen, J. H., Chen, W. L., Huang, C. C., & Chung, J. Y. (2020). Quick-SOFA score ≥ 2 predicts prolonged hospital stay in geriatric patients with influenza infection. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38(4), 780–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.06.041

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free