Search

Simple Summary: Patients with malignancies (solid tumors or hematological diseases) are at high risk of developing sepsis and are increasingly admitted to ICU due to their long-term prognosis improvement. The main objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term prognoses of patients with and without cancer admitted to the ICU for septic shock. In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. Introduction: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing septic shock (SSh) and are increasingly admitted to ICU given their improved long-term prognosis. We, therefore, compared the prognosis of cancer and non-cancer patients with SSh. Methods: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective cohort study (2013–2019) on patients admitted to ICU for SSh. We compared the clinical characteristics and management and studied short- and long-term mortality with ICU and in-hospital mortality and 1-year survival according to cancer status. Results: We analyzed 239 ICU stays in 210 patients, 59.5% of whom were men (n = 125), with a median age of 66.5 (IQR 56.3–77.0). Of the 121 cancer patients (57.6% of all patients), 70 had solid tumors (33.3%), and 51 had hematological malignancies (24.3%). When comparing ICU stays of patients with versus without cancer (n = 148 vs. n = 91 stays, respectively), mortality reached 30.4% (n = 45) vs. 30.0% (n = 27) in the ICU (p = 0.95), and 41.6% (n = 59) vs. 35.6% (n = 32) in hospital (p = 0.36), respectively. ICU length of stay (LOS) was 5.0 (2.0–11.3) vs. 6.0 (3.0–15.0) days (p = 0.27), whereas in-hospital LOS was 25.5 (13.8–42.0) vs. 19.5 (10.8–41.0) days (p = 0.33). Upon multivariate analysis, renal replacement therapy (OR = 2.29, CI95%: 1.06–4.93, p = 0.03), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR = 5.89, CI95%: 2.49–13.92, p < 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 7.85, CI95%: 2.90–21.20, p < 0.01) were associated with ICU mortality, whereas malignancy, hematological, or solid tumors were not (OR = 1.41, CI95%: 0.65–3.04; p = 0.38). Similarly, overall cancer status was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.99, CI95%: 0.98–4.03, p = 0.06); however, solid cancers were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.52, CI95%: 1.12–5.67, p = 0.03). Lastly, mortality was not significantly different at 365-day follow-up between patients with and without cancer. Conclusions: In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For the past two years, healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies tried to find predictive factors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to research age as a predictive factor associated with in-hospital mortality in severe and critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Between 1 March and 20 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients who were all hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We led our study in nine hospitals of northeast France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. Results: The median age of our study population was 66 years (58–72 years). Mortality was 24.6% (CI 95%: 20.6–29%) in the ICU and 26.5% (CI 95%: 22.3–31%) in the hospital. Non-survivors were significantly older (69 versus 64 years, p < 0.001) than the survivors. Although a history of cardio-vascular diseases was more frequent in the non-survivor group (p = 0.015), other underlying conditions and prior level of autonomy did not differ between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, age appeared to be an interesting predictive factor of in-hospital mortality. Thus, age ranges of 65 to 74 years (OR = 2.962, CI 95%: 1.231–7.132, p = 0.015) were predictive of mortality, whereas the group of patients aged over 75 years was not (OR = 3.084, CI 95%: 0.952–9.992, p = 0.06). Similarly, all comorbidities except for immunodeficiency (OR = 4.207, CI 95%: 1.006–17.586, p = 0.049) were not predictive of mortality. Finally, survival follow-up was obtained for the study population. Conclusion: Age appears to be a relevant predictive factor of in-hospital mortality in cases of severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients aged over 90 are being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with increasing frequency. The appropriateness of such decisions still remains controversial due to questionable outcome, limited resources and costs. Our objective was to determine the clinical characteristics and outcome in elderly patients (≥ 90 years) admitted in a medical ICU, with an additional focus on medico-economic implications. Methods: We reviewed the charts of all patients (≥ 90 years) admitted to our ICU. We compared them with all other ICU patients (< 90 years), sought to identify ICU mortality predictors and also performed a long-term survival follow-up. Results: In the study group of 317 stays: median age was 92 years (IQR: 91–94 years); most patients were female (71.3%.). Acute respiratory failure (52.4%) was the main admission diagnosis; mean SAPS II was 55.6±21.3; half the stays (49.2%) required mechanical ventilation (duration: 7.2±8.8 days); withholding and withdrawing decisions were made for 33.4% of all stays. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 35.7% and 42.6% respectively. Mechanical ventilation (OR = 4.83, CI95%: 1.59–15.82) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality whereas age was not (OR = 0.88, CI95%: 0.72–1.08). Social security reimbursement was significantly lower in the study group compared with all other ICU stays, both per stay (13,160 vs 22,092 Euros, p< 0.01) and per day of stay (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Among critically ill elderly patients (≥ 90 years), chronological age was not an independent factor of ICU mortality. ICU care-related costs in this population should not be considered as a limiting factor for ICU admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The allocation of liver transplants to patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with multi-organ failure who are admitted in ICU remains controversial due to their high post-transplant mortality rate and the absence of identified mortality risk factors. Methods We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study to determine the post-transplant mortality rate of patients with ALF and ACLF requiring ICU care prior to liver transplant (LT) and identified pretransplant factors of post-transplant mortality. Results Eighty-four patients (29 with ALF and 55 with ACLF) received a liver transplant while they were hospitalized at the ICU. Their mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 41, and their mean sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) was 15 the day before transplant. The overall 1-year survival rate was 66%. In multivariate analysis, pretransplant lactate level and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were the only two independent factors associated with post-transplant mortality. The absence of ARDS and a pretransplant lactate level< 5 mmol/L led to the identification of a subgroup of ICU patients with a good 1-year post-transplant survival (>80%). Conclusions Low lactatemia lactate level and the absence of ARDS could be useful criteria in selecting those patients in ICU who could be eligible for liver transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. Methods: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. Results: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60–80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8–88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1–56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8–88.3% with a PaO2/FiO2 < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6–43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). Conclusion: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]