Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(02): 128-136
DOI: 10.1055/a-1884-1001
SMFM Fellowship Series Articles

Development of the Sepsis-Associated Adverse Outcomes in Pregnancy Score

Angela J. Stephens
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Kyung H. Lee
2   Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
John R. Barton
3   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Baptist Health Lexington, Lexington, Kentucky
,
Suneet P. Chauhan
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Andrea L. Baker
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
,
Baha M. Sibai
1   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to develop and evaluate a scoring system—called the Sepsis-Associated Adverse Outcomes in Pregnancy (SAAP) Score—to identify individuals with maternal infection that have composite maternal adverse outcomes (CMAO).

Study Design Using the International Classification of Disease codes, we identified pregnant and postpartum (up to 6 weeks after birth) individuals admitted at our center with a primary diagnosis of infection. The primary outcome was CMAO which included any of the following: maternal intensive care unit admission, surgical intervention, vasopressor use, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary edema, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, disseminated intravascular coagulation, dialysis, organ failure, venous thromboembolism, or maternal death. Regularized logistic regression was used to identify variables that best discriminate CMAO status. Variables were chosen for inclusion following evaluation of statistical and clinical significance. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.

Results Of the 23,235 deliveries during the study period, 227 (0.9%) individuals met inclusion criteria and among them CMAO occurred in 39.2% (95% CI: 33.1–45.7%). The SAAP score consisted of six variables (white blood cell count, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, lactic acid, and abnormal diagnostic imaging) with scores ranging from 0 to 11 and a score of ≥7 being abnormal. An abnormal SAAP score had an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74–0.86) for CMAO. The sensitivity and specificity of the SAAP score for CMAO was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60–0.80) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64–0.80), respectively. The positive predictive value was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52–0.72) and negative predictive value was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71–0.86).

Conclusion Pending external validation, the sixth variable SAAP score may permit early recognition of pregnant and postpartum individuals with infection who are likely to develop adverse maternal outcomes.

Key Points

  • Sepsis is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality.

  • Early recognition improves maternal sepsis outcomes.

  • The SAAP score may permit early recognition of maternal adverse outcomes due to infection.

Keywords

sepsis - maternal sepsis - sepsis in pregnancy - maternal morbidity - maternal mortality

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 June 2022

Accepted: 24 June 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 June 2022

Article published online:
28 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW. et al. The Third International Consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (SEPSIS-3). JAMA 2016; 315 (08) 801-810
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Shields A, de Assis V, Halscott T. Top 10 Pearls for the Recognition, evaluation, and management of maternal sepsis. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 138 (02) 289-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blauvelt CA, Nguyen KC, Cassidy AG, Gaw SL. Perinatal outcomes among patients with sepsis during pregnancy. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (09) e2124109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Stephens AJ, Chauhan SP, Barton JR, Sibai BM. Maternal sepsis: a review of national and international guidelines. Am J Perinatol 2021; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736382.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Plante LA. Management of sepsis and septic shock for the obstetrician-gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016; 43 (04) 659-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ali A, Lamont RF. Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of sepsis in pregnancy. F1000 Res 2019; 8: 1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Burlinson CEG, Sirounis D, Walley KR, Chau A. Sepsis in pregnancy and the puerperium. Int J Obstet Anesth 2018; 36: 96-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 WHO Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) Research Group. Frequency and management of maternal infection in health facilities in 52 countries (GLOSS): a 1-week inception cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8 (05) e661-e671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy mortality surveillance system. Accessed November 17, 2021 at: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kendle AM, Salemi JL, Tanner JP, Louis JM. Delivery-associated sepsis: trends in prevalence and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (04) 391.e1-391.e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Plante LA, Pacheco LD, Louis JM. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). SMFM consult series #47: sepsis during pregnancy and the puerperium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (04) B2-B10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lappen JR, Keene M, Lore M, Grobman WA, Gossett DR. Existing models fail to predict sepsis in an obstetric population with intrauterine infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (06) 573.e1-573.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bauer ME, Lorenz RP, Bauer ST, Rao K, Anderson FWJ. Maternal deaths due to sepsis in the state of Michigan, 1999–2006. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (04) 747-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Barton JR, Sibai BM. Severe sepsis and septic shock in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (03) 689-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pacheco LD, Saade GR, Hankins GD. Severe sepsis during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 57 (04) 827-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Escobar MF, Echavarría MP, Zambrano MA, Ramos I, Kusanovic JP. Maternal sepsis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (03) 100149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB. et al; The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest 1992; 101 (06) 1644-1655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC. et al; SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003; 31 (04) 1250-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Maguire PJ, Power KA, Downey AF, O'Higgins AC, Sheehan SR, Turner MJ. Evaluation of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis due to maternal bacteremia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 133 (01) 116-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Escobar MF, Nasner D, Hurtado CF, Fernández PA, Echavarria MP. Characterization of obstetric patients with sepsis identified by two diagnostic scales at a fourth-level clinic in Colombia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 143 (01) 71-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kallur SD, Patil Bada V, Reddy P, Pandya S, Nirmalan PK. Organ dysfunction and organ failure as predictors of outcomes of severe maternal morbidity in an obstetric intensive care unit. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8 (04) OC06-OC08
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jain S, Guleria K, Suneja A, Vaid NB, Ahuja S. Use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for evaluating outcome among obstetric patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 132 (03) 332-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Oliveira-Neto A, Parpinelli MA, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Sousa MH. Sequential organ failure assessment score for evaluating organ failure and outcome of severe maternal morbidity in obstetric intensive care. ScientificWorldJournal 2012; 2012: 172145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Blanco Esquivel LA, Urbina JM, Zerón HM. Approach to an obstetric prognosis scale: The modified SOFA scale. Ghana Med J 2016; 50 (03) 129-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cagino SG, Burke AA, Letner DR, Leizer JM, Zelig CM. Quick sequential organ failure assessment: modifications for identifying maternal morbidity and mortality in obstetrical patients. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (01) 1-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bowyer L, Robinson HL, Barrett H. et al. SOMANZ guidelines for the investigation and management sepsis in pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 57 (05) 540-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Albright CM, Ali TN, Lopes V, Rouse DJ, Anderson BL. The Sepsis in Obstetrics Score: a model to identify risk of morbidity from sepsis in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (01) 39.e1-39.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Albright CM, Has P, Rouse DJ, Hughes BL. Internal validation of the Sepsis in Obstetrics Score to identify risk of morbidity from sepsis in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) 747-755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Edwards SE, Grobman WA, Lappen JR. et al. Modified obstetric early warning scoring systems (MOEWS): validating the diagnostic performance for severe sepsis in women with chorioamnionitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (04) 536.e1-536.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Howell EA, Egorova NN, Janevic T. et al. Race and ethnicity, medical insurance, and within-hospital severe maternal morbidity disparities. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (02) 285-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hastie T, Junyang Q. Glmnet vignette. Accessed June 9, 2016 at: https://hastie.su.domains/Papers/Glmnet_Vignette.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Green LJ, Mackillop LH, Salvi D. et al. Gestation-specific vital sign reference ranges in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (03) 653-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Abbassi-Ghanavati M, Greer LG, Cunningham FG. Pregnancy and laboratory studies: a reference table for clinicians. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (06) 1326-1331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Steyerberg EW, Harrell Jr FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (08) 774-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation, and Updating. 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,; 2019
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5 (09) 1315-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Li F, He H. Assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Shanghai Jingshen Yixue 2018; 30 (03) 207-212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mhyre JM, D'Oria R, Hameed AB. et al. The maternal early warning criteria: a proposal from the national partnership for maternal safety. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (04) 782-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Green LJ, Pullon R, Mackillop LH. et al. Postpartum-specific vital sign reference Ranges. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137 (02) 295-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar