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.

Don't Sugar Coat It: Glycemic Control in the Intensive Care Unit.

Stress hyperglycemia is the transient increase in blood glucose as a result of complex hormonal changes that occur during critical illness. It has been described in the critically ill for nearly 200 years; patient harm, including increases in morbidity, mortality, and lengths of stay, has been associated with hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glucose variability. However, there remains a contentious debate regarding the optimal glucose ranges for this population, most notably within the past 15 years. Recent landmark clinical trials have dramatically changed the treatment of stress hyperglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Earlier studies suggested that tight glucose control improved both morbidity and mortality for ICU patients, but later studies have suggested potential harm related to the development of hypoglycemia. Multiple trials have tried to elucidate potential glucose target ranges for special patient populations, including those with diabetes, trauma, sepsis, cardiac surgery, and brain injuries, but there remains conflicting evidence for most of these subpopulations. Currently, most international organizations recommend targeting moderate blood glucose concentration to levels <180 mg/dL for all patients in the intensive care unit. In this review, the history of stress hyperglycemia and its treatment will be discussed including optimal glucose target ranges, devices for monitoring blood glucose, and current professional organizations' recommendations regarding glucose control in the ICU.