Search

Purpose: Although delirium is known to negatively affect critically ill patients, little data exist on delirium in critically ill patients with cancer. Methods: We analyzed 915 critically ill patients with cancer between January and December 2018. Delirium screening was performed using the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (ICU), performed twice daily. Confusion Assessment Method-ICU incorporates four features of delirium: acute fluctuations in mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered levels of consciousness. Multivariable analysis controlling for admitting service, pre-ICU hospital length of stay (LOS), metastatic disease, CNS involvement, Mortality Probability Model II score on ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and others was performed to determine precipitating factors for delirium, ICU, and hospital mortality and LOS. Results: Delirium occurred in 40.5% (n = 317) of patients; 43.8% (n = 401) were female; the median age was 64.9 (interquartile range, 54.6-73.2) years; 70.8% (n = 647) were White, 9.3% (n = 85) were Black, and 8.9% (n = 81) were Asian. The most common cancer types were hematologic (25.7%, n = 244) and gastrointestinal (20.9%, n = 191). Delirium was independently associated with age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02; P = .038), longer pre-ICU hospital LOS (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.06; P < .001), not resuscitating on admission (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 4.44; P = .032), CNS involvement (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.20 to 4.20; P = .011), higher Mortality Probability Model II score (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.02; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.84 to 3.87; P < .001), and sepsis diagnosis (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.99; P = .046). Delirium was also independently associated with higher ICU mortality (OR, 10.75; 95% CI, 5.91 to 19.55; P < .001), hospital mortality (OR, 5.84; 95% CI, 4.03 to 8.46; P < .001), and ICU LOS (estimate, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.54 to 1.81; P < .001). Conclusion: Delirium significantly worsens outcome in critically ill patients with cancer. Delirium screening and management should be integrated into the care of this patient subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n53) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the level of recall, satisfaction, and perceived benefits of early mobility (EM) among ventilated cancer patients after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: A survey of patients' perceptions and recollections of EM was administered within 72 h of extubation. Data on recall of EM participation, activities achieved, adequacy of staffing and rest periods, strength to participate, activity level of difficulty, satisfaction with staff instructions, breathing management, and overall rating of the experience were analyzed. The Confusion Assessment Method for ICU (CAM-ICU) was used for delirium screening.Results: Fifty-four patients comprised the study group. Nearly 90% reported satisfaction with instructions, staffing, rest periods, and breathing management during EM. Participants indicated that EM maintained their strength (67%) and gave them control over their recovery (61%); a minority felt optimistic (37%) and safe (22%). Patients who achieved more sessions and "out-of-bed" exercises had better recall of actual activities compared with those who exercised in bed. Overall, patients with CAM-ICU-positive results (33%) performed less physical and occupational therapy exercises.Conclusions: Ventilated cancer patients reported an overall positive EM experience, but factual memory impairment of EM activities was common. These findings highlight the needs and the importance of shaping strategies to deliver a more patient focused EM experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respiratory signs and symptoms are commonly encountered by physicians who care for cancer patients. Supplemental oxygen (SOx) has long been used for treatment of hypoxic respiratory insufficiency, but data reveal mixed efficacy results. The use and outcome patterns of technologically advanced oxygen delivery devices, such as humidified high-flow nasal oxygen (HHFNOx), are incompletely understood. Methods: Institutional database search of the number of patient cases in which the current HHFNOx device was used, and abstraction of 183 patient medical records for usage characteristics. Results: Patients have been treated with HHFNOx at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) since 2008. Of the 183 patients randomly selected for our study, 72% received HHFNOx in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of hypoxia. Patients usually improved (41%) or remained stable (44%) while on the device, whereas 15% declined. At study completion, 45% of patients were living, and 55% had died. The median time on HHFNOx was 3 days (range: 1-27). A do not resuscitate (DNR) order was present in 101 (55%) patients, either before (12%) or after (43%) device utilization. The majority (78%) of these 101 patients died at MSKCC. Conclusion: Dyspnea is a common and important symptom in cancer patients for which SOx traditionally has had no clear basis except in select cases of hypoxia and patient preference. Our institutional experience with HHFNOx contributes to the understanding of the applications and challenges surrounding the use of new medical devices in the cancer population. Physiologic and quality-of-life benefits of HHFNOx compared with traditional oxygen delivery methods should be studied prospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which investigates unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) admissions after actual or planned hospital discharge at a tertiary care cancer center in the U.S. Researchers retrospectively reviewed all ICU admissions from January 2004 to December 2006 and assessed the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of ICU patients. It concludes that majority of ICU admissions after actual or planned hospital discharge is due to the worsening of the underlying condition.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship of intrahospital transport patterns with patient throughput and outcomes in an oncological intensive care unit. We retrospectively reviewed all patients admitted to a closed medical-surgical intensive care unit at a cancer center between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without transport and analyzed all intrahospital transports in relation to intensive care unit occupancy, length of stay, and intensive care unit and hospital outcomes. Transport patterns were also assessed by day of week, time of day, timing of the first transport to intensive care unit admission, and destination. Transported patients (n = 413, 43.5%) had significantly higher severity of illness scores on intensive care unit admission, greater use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and higher hospital mortality than nontransported patients (n = 535, 56.5%). Multiple transports (-2) occurred in 45% of the transported patients. The number of transports was directly proportional to intensive care unit length of stay. The highest transport rates and nearly half of all first transports occurred during the first 24 hours of intensive care unit admission. Transports were most common during weekdays and on afternoon and evening hours and most frequently to the computed tomography suite. Our study shows that intrahospital transport of the critically ill is a multifaceted process with important implications for intensive care unit resource analysis, workload and throughput. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]