Impact of Delirium Onset and Duration on Mortality in Patients With Cancer Admitted to the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the effects of delirium onset and duration on outcome in critically ill patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of delirium onset and duration on intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) in patients with cancer. METHODS: Of the 915 ICU patients admitted in 2018, 371 were included for analysis after excluding for terminal disease, <24-h ICU stay, lack of active cancer and delirium. Delirium was defined as early if onset was within 2 days of ICU admission, late if onset was on day 3 or later, short if duration was 2 days or less, and long if duration was 3 days or longer. Patients were placed into 4 combination groups: early-short, early-long, late-short, and late-long delirium. Multivariate analysis controlling for sex, age, metastatic disease, and predelirium hospital LOS was performed to determine ICU and hospital mortality and LOS. Exploratory analysis of long-term survival was also performed. Restricted cubic splines were performed to confirm the use of 2 days to distinguish between early versus late onset and short versus long duration. RESULTS: A total of 32.9% (n = 122) patients had early-short, 39.1% (n = 145) early-long, 16.2% (n = 60) late-short, and 11.9% (n = 44) late-long delirium. Late-long delirium was independently associated with increased ICU (OR 4.45, CI 1.92-10.30; P < .001) and hospital (OR 2.91, CI 1.37-6.19; P = .005) mortality and longer ICU (OR 1.97, CI 1.58-2.47; P < .001) LOS compared to early-short delirium. Early delirium had better overall survival at 18 months than late delirium. Long-term survival further improved when delirium duration was 2 days or less. Prediction heatmaps confirm the use of a 2-day cutoff. CONCLUSION: Late delirium, especially with long duration, significantly worsens outcome in ICU patients with cancer and should be considered a harbinger of poor overall condition.

Indicators of Clinical Trajectory in Patients With Cancer Who Receive Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) historically have had low survival to hospital discharge; however, overall CPR outcomes and cancer survival have improved. Identifying patients with cancer who are unlikely to survive CPR could guide and improve end-of-life discussions prior to cardiac arrest. METHODS: Demographics, clinical variables, and outcomes including immediate and hospital survival for patients with cancer aged ≥18 years who required in-hospital CPR from 2012 to 2015 were collected. Indicators capturing the overall declining clinical and oncologic trajectory (ie, no further therapeutic options for cancer, recommendation for hospice, or recommendation for do not resuscitate) prior to CPR were determined a priori and manually identified. RESULTS: Of 854 patients with cancer who underwent CPR, the median age was 63 years and 43.6% were female; solid cancers accounted for 60.6% of diagnoses. A recursive partitioning model selected having any indicator of declining trajectory as the most predictive factor in hospital outcome. Of our study group, 249 (29%) patients were found to have at least one indicator identified prior to CPR and only 5 survived to discharge. Patients with an indicator were more likely to die in the hospital and none were alive at 6 months after discharge. These patients were younger (median age, 59 vs 64 years; P≤.001), had a higher incidence of metastatic disease (83.0% vs 62.9%; P<.001), and were more likely to undergo CPR in the ICU (55.8% vs 36.5%; P<.001) compared with those without an indicator. Of patients without an indicator, 145 (25%) were discharged alive and half received some form of cancer intervention after CPR. CONCLUSIONS: Providers can use easily identifiable indicators to ascertain which patients with cancer are at risk for death despite CPR and are unlikely to survive to discharge. These findings can guide discussions regarding utility of resuscitation and the lack of further cancer interventions even if CPR is successful.

Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity in 97 Hospitalized Patients With Cancer: A Call for Standardization.

Hospitalized patients with cancer face pivotal decisions that will affect their cancer care trajectory and quality of life, but frequently lack decision making capacity (DMC). Standardization is conspicuously missing for inpatient oncology teams and for consultation-liaison psychiatrists performing DMC assessments for patients with cancer. This study sought to characterize a single institutional experience of psychiatric consultations to assess DMC. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 97 consecutive psychiatric consultations for DMC from 2017 to 2019. Demographic, hospital-based, and psychiatry consult differences were assessed based on the reasons for DMC evaluation (uncertainty, patient refusal, and emergency) and whether patients had decisional capacity. Out of 97 consultations, 56 (59%) hospitalized patients with cancer were unable to demonstrate capacity. Consultations came from medical services almost exclusively. Only 5% of primary teams documented their own DMC evaluation. Only 22% of DMC evaluation by consultation-liaison psychiatrists documented four determinates of DMC. Few commented on reversibility or tenuousness of DMC, and the identification of agents/surrogates; however, psychiatry consultants were more likely to follow up on patients without DMC. One-third of patients died in the hospital and two-thirds of patients were deceased 3 months after the consult. Given the substantial heterogeneity in the documentation of DMC evaluations in this retrospective chart review, we call for more rigor and standardization in documentation of DMC evaluations.

Delirium as a Risk Factor for Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Cancer.

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.