Do the SIRS Criteria Still Hold Value in Sepsis Identification and Intervention?

Introduction

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition characterized by the body's dysregulated response to infection, leading to organ dysfunction. Early identification and intervention are critical to improving outcomes. Historically, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria were used as a primary tool for identifying sepsis. However, as our understanding of sepsis evolved, so did the diagnostic criteria—culminating in the updated Sepsis-3 definitions.

This article reviews the original SIRS criteria, their role in diagnosing sepsis, and how contemporary guidelines have shifted toward more accurate models like qSOFA and the SOFA score.

What Are the SIRS Criteria?

The Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) was introduced in 1992 as part of the ACCP/SCCM consensus definitions of sepsis (Bone et al., 1992). SIRS is defined by the presence of two or more of the following clinical signs:

1. Temperature >38°C (100.4°F) or <36°C (96.8°F)

2. Heart rate >90 beats per minute

3. Respiratory rate >20 breaths per minute or PaCO₂ <32 mmHg

4. White blood cell count >12,000/µL or <4,000/µL, or >10% immature (band) forms

While these criteria helped standardize sepsis recognition, they were nonspecific—many patients with non-infectious conditions also met SIRS criteria, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

The Evolution: Sepsis-3 and SOFA

In 2016, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) redefined sepsis as:

“Life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection” (Singer et al., 2016).

Under Sepsis-3, the focus shifted from inflammation alone (as in SIRS) to organ dysfunction, quantified using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. An increase in SOFA score by ≥2 points in the setting of suspected infection indicates sepsis.

Septic shock, a subset of sepsis, is defined as:

• Persistent hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg and

• Serum lactate >2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation.

  
  

qSOFA: A Simpler Bedside Tool

Recognizing that full SOFA scoring is often impractical in non-ICU settings, the Sepsis-3 task force introduced the quick SOFA (qSOFA) score as a bedside prompt to identify patients at risk:

1. Respiratory rate ≥22/min

2. Altered mentation (GCS <15)

3. Systolic blood pressure ≤100 mmHg

A qSOFA score ≥2 suggests a high risk of poor outcome and warrants further evaluation for sepsis (Singer et al., 2016).

SIRS vs. qSOFA vs. SOFA: Key Differences

Feature	SIRS	qSOFA	SOFA
Focus	Inflammation	Clinical deterioration	Organ dysfunction
Setting	ED, wards, ICU	ED, wards	ICU, full labs required
Sensitivity	High	Lower than SIRS	High
Specificity	Low	Higher than SIRS	High
Use today	Screening (limited role)	Triage/prompt for action	Diagnostic confirmation

Clinical Implications and Controversy

Despite the adoption of Sepsis-3, many institutions and EMR systems still incorporate SIRS criteria due to their simplicity and longstanding familiarity. Some studies suggest combining SIRS and qSOFA improves sensitivity in the emergency department (Churpek et al., 2017).

However, qSOFA is not a diagnostic tool—it is a clinical prompt. SOFA remains the definitive scoring system for identifying organ dysfunction in sepsis.

Conclusion

The SIRS criteria were foundational in early sepsis recognition but lacked specificity, leading to frequent misclassification. The Sepsis-3 guidelines have refocused attention on organ dysfunction as the core of sepsis, with SOFA as the gold standard and qSOFA as a bedside screening tool. Clinicians must remain updated and use the appropriate criteria in the right clinical context to guide early diagnosis and management.

References

1. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. (1992). Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Chest, 101(6), 1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.101.6.1644

2. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. (2016). The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 315(8), 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287

3. Churpek MM, Zadravecz FJ, Winslow C, et al. (2017). Incidence and Prognostic Value of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and Organ Dysfunction in Ward Patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 195(6), 724–730. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201602-0325OC

4. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. (2016). Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis. JAMA, 315(8), 762–774. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0288

Assessed and Endorsed by the MedReport Medical Review Board