Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter from Pérez-Torres et al. regarding our manuscript [1]. Pérez-Torres supports our main contention that it is time to update the SOFA score to ensure it fulfils current requirements following the many changes in clinical practice over the last three decades.
Anzeige
The example provided is self-explanatory: in 1996, the clinical use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) was virtually non-existent. Consequently, it was not considered within the respiratory dysfunction score. If the original rules described in the 1996 manuscript are applied, receiving VV-ECMO would score 3 points. If the rules are modified to incorporate VV-ECMO as a marker of greatest dysfunction, then the score would be 4. The goalposts have shifted.
A useful analogy is to compare a mathematical model to a molecule used for therapy. A change, even minor, in a single atom may result in no effect yet the molecule is different. Only after successful testing can it be implemented into clinical practice. This principle is not widely applied to mathematical models, even if the scientific reasoning is the same. We agree that it is time to change, and that the accumulation of these “small changes” was why we proposed the development and validation of a new “SOFA 2.0” score instead of a modification of the original system with the same name [3].
Thank you for raising the attention to this important yet grossly underestimated problem.
Declarations
Competing Interests
RM has no competing interest to declare relevant to this article. AR has no competing interest to declare relevant to this article. MS has no competing interest to declare relevant to this article. JLV is Editor-in-Chief of Critical Care—he has no other competing interest to declare relevant to this article.
Anzeige
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.