Tolonen, MattiCoccolini, FedericoAnsaloni, LucaSartelli, MassimoRoberts, Derek JMcKee, Jessica LLeppaniemi, AriDoig, Christopher JCatena, FaustoFabian, TimothyJenne, Craig NChiara, OsvaldoKubes, PaulKluger, YoramFraga, Gustavo PPereira, Bruno MDiaz, Jose JSugrue, MichaelMoore, Ernest ERen, JiananBall, Chad GCoimbra, RaulDixon, ElijahBiffl, WalterMacLean, AnthonyMcBeth, Paul BPosadas-Calleja, Juan GDi Saverio, SalomoneXiao, JimmyKirkpatrick, Andrew W2018-09-262018-09-262018-04-06World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2018 Apr 06;13(1):17http://hdl.handle.net/1880/108014https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/45065Abstract Background Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database. Methods All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality. Results Predictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve > 0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score ≥ 2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score ≥ 8 (73.1%), SOFA ≥ 3 (75.2%), and APACHE II ≥ 14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS ≥ 8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score ≥ 3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA ≥ 4 and WSESSSS ≥ 8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality). Conclusions No one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest “inclusion-criteria” to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ; Registered on May 22, 2017.Journal Article2018-09-26enThe Author(s).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-018-0177-2