ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03299894qSOFASTUpdated Aug 1, 2018

Impact of qSOFA Calculation on the Timing of Antimicrobial Therapy in the Emergency Department

An interventional study of systematic calculation of qSOFA in Bacterial Infection and Intensive Care, sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Régional d'Orléans. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 105 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-08-01.

Sponsored by Centre Hospitalier Régional d'Orléans · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
780
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
18 Years to 105 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The delayed administration of an adequate antimicrobial therapy is a strong predictor of impaired outcome in patients with bacterial sepsis. Therefore, the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (2016) recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials be initiated within one hour following the recognition of sepsis or septic shock.

The quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is a new bedside tool which has been recently proposed by the Third International Sepsis Consensus Definitions Task Force (Sepsis-3) to identify patients with suspected infection who are at greater risk for a poor outcome outside the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). It uses three criteria, assigning one point for low systolic blood pressure (SBP ≤100 mmHg), high respiratory rate (≥22 breaths per min) and altered mentation (Glasgow coma scale \<15). The score ranges from 0 to 3 points. A qSOFA value ≥2 points is associated with a greater risk of death or prolonged ICU stay, these outcomes being more common in infected patients who may be septic than in those with uncomplicated infection. The definite goal of qSOFA is to hasten the management and thus improve the outcome of patients at risk of sepsis or septic shock.

Many patients admitted to the hospital for bacterial sepsis or septic shock are initially managed in the Emergency Department (ED). This study aims at investigating whether the routine calculation of qSOFA at patient triage may hasten the initiation of antimicrobial therapy in patients admitted to the ED with suspected or proven bacterial infection, especially in those with subsequent criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition).

02

Conditions studied

  • Bacterial Infection
  • Intensive Care

Keywords

  • Sepsis
  • Shock, septic
  • Emergency service, hospital
  • Anti-infective agents
  • Outcome assessment
03

In context

Bacterial Infections

584 studies on the registry are indexed under Bacterial Infections; 84 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 780 is above the median of 84 across 382 interventional studies indexed under Bacterial Infections.

Browse Bacterial Infections studies →

Lead sponsor

Centre Hospitalier Régional d'Orléans is the lead sponsor of 132 studies on the registry; 32 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 105 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Suspected or proven bacterial infection at emergency department triage

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Imminent death
  • Pregnancy
  • Breast-feeding
  • For patients managed by a medicalized pre-hospital emergency team before ED admission : administration of a first dose of antimicrobial agent before ED admission
  • Lack of coverage by the public health insurance system
  • Patient's refusal for study enrollment
  • Lack of confirmed bacterial infection (i.e., documented either clinically, microbiologically or by imaging procedures) in patients with a suspected bacterial infection at emergency departement triage
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Sequential assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
780 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    systematic calculation of qSOFA

    Usual procedure for patient triage AND systematic calculation of qSOFA at Emergency Department triage in patients admitted with a suspected or proven bacterial infection.

    Procedure: systematic calculation of qSOFA

  • No intervention
    no systematic calculation of qSOFA

    Usual procedures for patient triage at Emergency Department admission and management of suspected or proven bacterial infection. No systematic calculation of qSOFA.

Interventions

  • Proceduresystematic calculation of qSOFA

    calculation of qSOFA for each patient

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of patients who receive a first dose of antimicrobial agent

    Proportion of patients with criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) who receive a first dose of antimicrobial agent within one hour following triage in the emergency department.

    Time frame: one hour

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of patients who receive a first dose of adequate antimicrobial agent

    Proportion of patients with criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) and microbiologically documented infection who receive a first dose of adequate antimicrobial agent within one hour following triage in the emergency department.

    Time frame: one hour

  2. Proportion of patients who receive a first dose of antimicrobial agent

    Proportion of patients with criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) who receive a first dose of antimicrobial agent within 3 hours following triage in the emergency department.

    Time frame: three hours

  3. Proportion of patients who receive a first dose of adequate antimicrobial agent

    Proportion of patients with criteria for sepsis or septic shock (Sepsis-3 definition) and a microbiologically documented infection who receive a first dose of adequate antimicrobial agent within 3 hours following triage in the emergency department

    Time frame: three hours

  4. Proportion of patients with a decrease in SOFA score value ≥ 1 point

    Proportion of patients with a decrease in SOFA score value ≥ 1 point between triage in the emergency department (Day 0) and Day 2 among those with an initial SOFA score value ≥ 1 point

    Time frame: two days

  5. Proportion of patients requiring an admission to the Intensive Care Unit

    Proportion of patients requiring an admission to the Intensive Care Unit between triage in the emergency department (Day 0) and Day 2

    Time frame: two days

  6. In-hospital mortality at day 7

    Number of patients who died in hospital at day 7

    Time frame: seven days

  7. Overall In-hospital mortality

    Number of patients who died in hospital during the hospital stay

    Time frame: through hospital discharge, up to 3 months

  8. Length of hospital stay

    Number of days in hospital

    Time frame: throught hospital discharge, up to 3 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Regional Hospital center of Orleans
    Orléans, 45067, France
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. PubMed 26903338 ↗
  • Petit J, Passerieux J, Maitre O, Guerin C, Rozelle C, Cordeau O, Cassonnet A, Malet A, Boulain T, Barbier F; qSOFAST study group. Impact of a qSOFA-based triage procedure on antibiotic timing in ED patients with sepsis: A prospective interventional study. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Mar;38(3):477-484. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.05.022. Epub 2019 May 10. PubMed 31103379 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Oct 2017 to primary completion in Jun 2018, 7 months.

Of 56 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Bacterial Infections, half reached primary completion within 25 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 43. This study's 7 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 60 studies reached it within 25 months; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 43.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 25, 2017
First posted
Oct 3, 2017
StartActual
Oct 12, 2017
Primary completionActual
Jun 10, 2018
CompletionActual
Jun 10, 2018
Last update
Aug 1, 2018
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 1, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03299894
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 3, 2017
Start date
Oct 12, 2017
Primary completion
Jun 10, 2018
Completion
Jun 10, 2018
Last update
Aug 1, 2018

Study contacts

Julien PASSERIEUX, MD
principal investigator · Regional Hospital Center of Orleans

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion