Search

BackgroundVery elderly critically ill patients (ie, those older than 75 or 80 years) are an increasing population in intensive care units. However, patients with cancer have encompassed only a minority in epidemiological studies of very old critically-ill patients. We aimed to describe clinical characteristics and identify factors associated with hospital mortality in a cohort of patients aged 80 or older with cancer admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in 94 ICUs in Brazil. We included patients aged 80 years or older with active cancer who had an unplanned admission. We performed a mixed effect logistic regression model to identify variables independently associated with hospital mortality.ResultsOf 4604 included patients, 1807 (39.2%) died in hospital. Solid metastatic (OR = 2.46; CI 95%, 2.01-3.00), hematological cancer (OR = 2.32; CI 95%, 1.75-3.09), moderate/severe performance status impairment (OR = 1.59; CI 95%, 1.33-1.90) and use of vasopressors (OR = 4.74; CI 95%, 3.88-5.79), mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.54; CI 95%, 1.25-1.89) and renal replacement (OR = 1.81; CI 95%, 1.29-2.55) therapy were independently associated with increased hospital mortality. Emergency surgical admissions were associated with lower mortality compared to medical admissions (OR = 0.71; CI 95%, 0.52-0.96).ConclusionsHospital mortality rate in very elderly critically ill patients with cancer with unplanned ICU admissions are lower than expected a priori. Cancer characteristics, performance status impairment and acute organ dysfunctions are associated with increased mortality.

Background: It is unclear whether influenza infection and associated co-infection are associated with patient-important outcomes in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. Methods: Preplanned secondary analysis of EFRAIM, a prospective cohort study of 68 hospitals in 16 countries. We included 1611 patients aged 18 years or older with non-AIDS-related immunocompromise, who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main exposure of interest was influenza infection status. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes ICU length of stay (LOS) and 90-day mortality. Results: Influenza infection status was categorized into four groups: patients with influenza alone (n = 95, 5.8%), patients with influenza plus pulmonary co-infection (n = 58, 3.6%), patients with non-influenza pulmonary infection (n = 820, 50.9%), and patients without pulmonary infection (n = 638, 39.6%). Influenza infection status was associated with a requirement for intubation and with LOS in ICU (P < 0.001). Patients with influenza plus co-infection had the highest rates of intubation and longest ICU LOS. On crude analysis, influenza infection status was associated with ICU mortality (P < 0.001) but not hospital mortality (P = 0.09). Patients with influenza plus co-infection and patients with non-influenza infection alone had similar ICU mortality (41% and 37% respectively) that was higher than patients with influenza alone or those without infection (33% and 26% respectively). A propensity score-matched analysis did not show a difference in hospital mortality attributable to influenza infection (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.90-1.13, P = 0.85). Age, severity scores, ARDS, and performance status were all associated with ICU, hospital, and 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Category of infectious etiology of respiratory failure (influenza, non-influenza, influenza plus co-infection, and non-infectious) was associated with ICU but not hospital mortality. In a propensity score-matched analysis, influenza infection was not associated with the primary outcome of hospital mortality. Overall, influenza infection alone may not be an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in immunosuppressed patients., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Purpose To investigate the impact of organizational characteristics and processes of care on hospital mortality and resource use in patients with cancer admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 9,946 patients with cancer (solid, n = 8,956; hematologic, n = 990) admitted to 70 ICUs (51 located in general hospitals and 19 in cancer centers) during 2013. We retrieved patients’ clinical and outcome data from an electronic ICU quality registry. We surveyed ICUs regarding structure, organization, staffing patterns, and processes of care. We used mixed multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify characteristics associated with hospital mortality and efficient resource use in the ICU. Results Median number of patients with cancer per center was 110 (interquartile range, 58 to 154), corresponding to 17.9% of all ICU admissions. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 15.9% and 25.4%, respectively. After adjusting for relevant patient characteristics, presence of clinical pharmacists in the ICU (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90), number of protocols (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98), and daily meetings between oncologists and intensivists for care planning (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.91) were associated with lower mortality. Implementation of protocols (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.07) and meetings between oncologists and intensivists (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.15 to 19.22) were also independently associated with more efficient resource use. Neither admission to ICUs in cancer centers compared with general hospitals nor annual case volume had an impact on mortality or resource use. Conclusion Organizational aspects, namely the implementation of protocols and presence of clinical pharmacists in the ICU, and close collaboration between oncologists and ICU teams are targets to improve mortality and resource use in critically ill patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury is associated with many conditions, and no interventions to improve the outcomes of established acute kidney injury have been developed. We performed this study to determine whether goal-directed therapy conducted during the early stages of acute kidney injury could change the course of the disease. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. Patients with early acute kidney injury in the critical care unit were randomly allocated to a standard care (control) group or a goal-directed therapy group with 8h of intensive treatment to maximize oxygen delivery, and all patients were evaluated during a period of 72h. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02414906. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were eligible for the study, and 99 patients were randomized. Central venous oxygen saturation was significantly increased and the serum lactate level significantly was decreased from baseline levels in the goal-directed therapy group (p=0.001) compared to the control group (p=0.572). No significant differences in the change in serum creatinine level (p=0.96), persistence of acute kidney injury beyond 72h (p=0.064) or the need for renal replacement therapy (p=0.82) were observed between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the goal-directed therapy group than in the control group (33% vs. 51%; RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00, p=0.048, number needed to treat=5). CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed therapy for patients in the early stages of acute kidney injury did not change the disease course.

Introduction Cancer patients are at risk for severe complications related to the underlying malignancy or its treatment and, therefore, usually require admission to intensive care units (ICU). Here, we evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes in this subgroup of patients. Materials and Methods Secondary analysis of two prospective cohorts of cancer patients admitted to ICUs. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. Results Out of 2,028 patients, 456 (23%) had cancer-related complications. Compared to those without cancer-related complications, they more frequently had worse performance status (PS) (57% vs 36% with PS≥2), active malignancy (95% vs 58%), need for vasopressors (45% vs 34%), mechanical ventilation (70% vs 51%) and dialysis (12% vs 8%) (P

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality among critically ill patients with cancer. Information about clinical outcomes and factors associated with increased risk of death in these patients is necessary to help physicians recognize those patients who are most likely to benefit from ICU therapy and identify possible targets for intervention.In this study, we evaluated cancer patients with sepsis chosen from a multicenter prospective study to characterize their clinical characteristics and to identify independent risk factors associated with hospital mortality.Subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) to evaluate adult cancer patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We used logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality.Of the 717 patients admitted to the participating ICUs, 268 (37%) had severe sepsis (n = 142, 53%) or septic shock (n = 126, 47%). These patients comprised the population of the present study. The mean score on the third version of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score was 62.9 ± 17.7 points, and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (7-12) points. The most frequent sites of infection were the lungs (48%), intraabdominal region (25%), bloodstream as primary infection (19%), and urinary tract (17%). Half of the patients had microbiologically proven infections, and Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens causing sepsis (31%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 42% and 56%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the number of acute organ dysfunctions (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.87), hematological malignancies (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.05-6.27), performance status 2-4 (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.44-4.43), and polymicrobial infections (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.52-9.21) were associated with hospital mortality.Sepsis is a common cause of critical illness in patients with cancer and remains associated with high mortality. Variables related to underlying malignancy, sepsis severity, and characteristics of infection are associated with a grim prognosis.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring nonpalliative ventilatory support.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian ICUs evaluating adult patients with cancer requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during the first 48 h of their ICU stay. We used logistic regression to identify the variables associated with hospital mortality.Of 717 patients, 263 (37%) (solid tumors = 227; hematologic malignancies = 36) received ventilatory support. NIV was initially used in 85 patients (32%), and 178 (68%) received MV. Additionally, NIV followed by MV occurred in 45 patients (53%). Hospital mortality rates were 67% in all patients, 40% in patients receiving NIV only, 69% when NIV was followed by MV, and 73% in patients receiving MV only (P.001). Adjusting for the type of admission, newly diagnosed malignancy (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.28-10.10), recurrent or progressive malignancy (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.25-10.81), tumoral airway involvement (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.30-12.56), performance status (PS) 2 to 4 (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.59), NIV followed by MV (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.09-8.18), MV as initial ventilatory strategy (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.45-8.60), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (each point except the respiratory domain) (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29) were associated with hospital mortality. Hospital survival in patients with good PS and nonprogressive malignancy and without tumoral airway involvement was 53%. Conversely, patients with poor functional capacity and cancer progression had unfavorable outcomes.Patients with cancer with good PS and nonprogressive disease requiring ventilatory support should receive full intensive care, because one-half of these patients survive. On the other hand, provision of palliative care should be considered the main goal for patients with poor PS and progressive underlying malignancy.