Search

Background: Patients with cancer represent an important proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Oncologists and intensivists have distinct knowledge backgrounds, and conflicts about the appropriate management of these patients may emerge., Methods: We surveyed oncologists and intensivists at 2 academic cancer centers regarding their management of 2 hypothetical patients with different cancer types (metastatic pancreatic cancer and metastatic breast cancer with positive receptors for estrogen, progesterone, and HER-2) who develop septic shock and multiple organ failure., Results: Sixty intensivists and 46 oncologists responded to the survey. Oncologists and intensivists similarly favored withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with pancreatic cancer (33/46 [72%] vs 48/60 [80%], P = .45). On the other hand, intensivists favored more withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with breast cancer compared to oncologists (32/59 [54%] vs 9/44 [21%], P < .001). In the multinomial logistic regression, the oncology specialists were more likely to advocate for a full-code status for the patient with breast cancer (OR = 5.931; CI 95%, 1.762-19.956; P = .004)., Conclusions: Oncologists and intensivists share different views regarding life support measures in critically ill patients with cancer. Oncologists tend to focus on the cancer characteristics, whereas intensivists focus on multiple organ failure when weighing in on the same decisions. Regular meetings between oncologists and intensivists may reduce possible conflicts regarding the critical care of patients with cancer.

Purpose: Strategies aiming light sedation are associated with decreased length on mechanical ventilation. However, awake or easily arousable patients may be prone to greater prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of light sedation strategies regarding the prevalence of PTSD., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to November 2014 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated light sedation strategies and addressed PTSD prevalence in the follow-up as a specific outcome. Because not all trials performed the same comparisons, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate indirect comparisons., Results: Five studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies compared daily sedation interruption with usual care (92 patients), 2 studies compared a light sedation protocol with daily sedation interruption (47 patients), and 1 study compared light and deep sedation (102 patients). Compared with usual sedation care/deep sedation, neither daily interruption of sedation (odds ratio=0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.98) nor a light sedation protocol (odds ratio=0.90, 95% confidence interval, 0.27-3.05) was associated with increased risks on long-term PTSD prevalence., Conclusion: Light sedation strategies seem to be safe in terms of PTSD prevalence. However, the small number of included trials and patients may not be sufficient to drive strong statements., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)