RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance that threatens immunocompromised cancer patients. Infections caused by MDR Gram-negative pathogens are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality. Hence, empirical therapy with standard-of-care (SOC) antibiotics could be suboptimal in these vulnerable patients. New antibiotics covering potential resistant pathogens may be considered. METHODS: We conducted a randomized non-inferiority study comparing safety and efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IPM/REL), a ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination, with SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem) in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients received at least 48 h of IV antibiotics and were assessed at end-of-IV (EOIV) therapy, test of cure (TOC; Days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; Days 35-42). RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were enrolled (49 IPM/REL and 50 SOC). Demographics and rates of documented microbiological infections were similar in both groups. In the SOC arm, 86% of antibiotics consisted of cefepime. Patients on IPM/REL had a higher favourable clinical response at EOIV than those on SOC (90% versus 74%; Pâ=â0.042); however, responses were similar at TOC and LFU. Microbiological eradication was comparable at all three timepoints. Study drug-related adverse events and adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were similar in both groups, with no study drug-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compared with SOC antibiotics, predominantly cefepime, IPM/REL for empirical coverage of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients is generally safe and could be associated with a better clinical outcome at EOIV. The current SOC consisting mainly of agents that do not cover for ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales bacteria should be reconsidered.
RESUMO
Brain metastases (BMs) are the most prevalent type of cerebral tumor, significantly affecting survival. In adults, lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma are the primary cancers associated with BMs. Symptoms often result from brain compression, and patients may present to the emergency department (ED) with life-threatening conditions. The goal of treatment of BMs is to maximize survival and quality of life by choosing the least toxic therapy. Surgical resection followed by cavity radiation or definitive stereotactic radiosurgery remains the standard approach, depending on the patient's condition. Conversely, whole brain radiation therapy is becoming more limited to cases with multiple inoperable BMs and is less frequently used for postoperative control. BMs often signal advanced systemic disease, and patients usually present to the ED with poorly controlled symptoms, justifying hospitalization. Over half of patients with BMs in the ED are admitted, making effective ED-based management a challenge. This article reviews the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and current treatment options of patients with BMs. Additionally, it provides an overview of ED management and highlights the challenges faced in this setting. An improved understanding of the reasons for potentially avoidable hospitalizations in cancer patients with BMs is needed and could help emergency physicians distinguish patients who can be safely discharged from those who require observation or hospitalization.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir has been shown to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression by 88% compared to placebo, while Molnupiravir reduced it by 31%. However, these two agents have not been compared head-to-head. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of both agents for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients. METHODS: We identified 240 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Patients were matched using a 1:2 ratio based on age group (18-64 years vs. ≥65) and type of cancer. The collected data included demographics, comorbidities, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable characteristics and presenting symptoms. However, dyspnea was more prevalent in the Molnupiravir group, while sore throat was more prevalent in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir group. The rate of disease progression was comparable in both groups by univariate and multivariable analysis. Treatment with Molnupiravir versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir revealed no significant difference in disease progression by multivariable analysis (adjusted OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.14, p = 0.70). Patients who received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, however, were significantly more prone to having drug-drug interactions/adverse events (30% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in cancer patients, Molnupiravir was comparable to Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in preventing progression to severe disease/death and rebound events, and it had a superior safety profile.
RESUMO
Hemoptysis in cancer patients can occur for various reasons, including infections, tumors, blood vessel abnormalities and inflammatory conditions. The degree of hemoptysis is commonly classified according to the quantity of blood expelled. However, volume-based definitions may not accurately reflect the clinical impact of bleeding. This review explores a more comprehensive approach to evaluating hemoptysis by considering its risk factors, epidemiology and clinical consequences. In particular, this review provides insight into the risk factors, identifies mortality rates associated with hemoptysis in cancer patients and highlights the need for developing a mortality prediction score specific for cancer patients. The use of hemoptysis-related variables may help stratify patients into risk categories; optimize the control of bleeding with critical care; implement the use of tracheobronchial or vascular interventions; and aid in treatment planning. Effective management of hemoptysis in cancer patients must address the underlying cause while also providing supportive care to improve patients' quality of life.
RESUMO
Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T cell infusion (CAR T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies, but treatment-related toxicities are of concern. Understanding the timing and reasons for which patients present to the emergency department (ED) after CAR T therapy can assist with the early recognition and management of toxicities. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted for patients who had undergone CAR T therapy in the past 6 months and visited the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 04/01/2018 and 08/01/2022. The timing of presentation after CAR T product infusion, patient characteristics, and outcomes of the ED visit were examined. Survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: During the period studied, there were 276 ED visits by 168 unique patients. Most patients had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (103/168; 61.3%), multiple myeloma (21/168; 12.5%), or mantle cell lymphoma (16/168; 9.5%). Almost all 276 visits required urgent (60.5%) or emergent (37.7%) care, and 73.5% of visits led to admission to the hospital or observation unit. Fever was the most frequent presenting complaint, reported in 19.6% of the visits. The 30-day and 90-day mortality rates after the index ED visits were 17.0% and 32.2%, respectively. Patients who had their first ED visit >14 days after CAR T product infusion had significantly worse overall survival (multivariable hazard ratio 3.27; 95% confidence interval 1.29-8.27; P=0.012) than patients who first visited the ED within 14 days of CAR T product infusion. Conclusion: Cancer patients who receive CAR T therapy commonly visit the ED, and most are admitted and/or require urgent or emergent care. During early ED visits patients mainly present with constitutional symptoms such as fever and fatigue, and these early visits are associated with better overall survival.
RESUMO
Background: An increasing number of observational studies have reported the persistence of symptoms following recovery from acute COVID-19 disease in non-cancer patients. The long-term consequences of COVID-19 are not fully understood particularly in the cancer patient population. The purpose of this study is to assess post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) in cancer patients following acute COVID-19 recovery. Methods: We identified cancer patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 disease between March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020, and followed them till May 2021. To assess PASC, we collected patients reported outcomes through questionnaires that were sent to patients daily for 14 days after COVID-19 diagnosis then weekly for 3 months, and then monthly thereafter. We also reviewed patients' electronic medical records to capture the persistence or emergence of new COVID19-related symptoms reported during any clinic or hospital encounter beyond 30 days of the acute illness and up to 14 months. Results: We included 312 cancer patients with a median age of 57 years (18-86). The majority of patients had solid tumors (75%). Of the 312 patients, 188 (60%) reported long COVID-19 symptoms with a median duration of 7 months and up to 14 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. The most common symptoms reported included fatigue (82%), sleep disturbances (78%), myalgias (67%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (61%), followed by headache, altered smell or taste, dyspnea (47%), and cough (46%). A higher number of females reported a persistence of symptoms compared to males (63% vs. 37%; p=0.036). Cancer type, neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, and hospital admission during acute COVID-19 disease were comparable in both groups. Among the 188 patients with PASC, only 16 (8.5%) were re-admitted for COVID-related reasons. Conclusions: More than one out of two cancer patients, and more likely females, report PASC that may persist beyond 6 months and even 1 year. The most common symptoms are non-respiratory and consist of fatigue, sleep disturbance, myalgia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Most of the cancer patients with PASC were managed on outpatient basis with only 8.5% requiring a COVID-19-related re-admission. Funding: This research is supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award number P30CA016672, which supports the MD Anderson Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Estados Unidos , Feminino , Masculino , Humanos , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Síndrome de COVID-19 Pós-Aguda , Teste para COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , FadigaRESUMO
Background: In this international multicenter study, we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30 day mortality and the impact of cancer and novel treatment modalities in a large group of patients with and without cancer with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of patients with and without cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020 from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 with cancer and 2851 without cancer patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to be pancytopenic and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding 2 wk (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin, and procalcitonin) but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By country-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, cancer was not found to be an independent risk factor for 30 day mortality (p=0.18), whereas lymphopenia was independently associated with increased mortality in all patients and in patients with cancer. Older age (≥65y) was the strongest predictor of 30 day mortality in all patients (OR = 4.47, p<0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30 day mortality (OR = 0.64, p=0.036). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30 day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9 vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Increased 30 day all-cause mortality from COVID-19 was not independently associated with cancer but was independently associated with lymphopenia often observed in hematolgic malignancy. Remdesivir, particularly in patients with cancer receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30 day all-cause mortality. Funding: National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Linfopenia , Neoplasias , Humanos , COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/terapia , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Sobrevivência , Fatores de Risco , Neoplasias/complicações , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , OxigênioRESUMO
Pain remains an undertreated complication of cancer, with poor pain control decreasing patients' quality of life. Traditionally, patients presenting to an emergency department with pain have only had two dispositions available to them: hospitalization or discharge. A third emerging healthcare environment, the emergency department observation unit (EDOU), affords patients access to a hospital's resources without hospitalization. To define the role of an EDOU in the management of cancer pain, we conducted a retrospective study analyzing patients placed in an EDOU with uncontrolled cancer pain for one year. Patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics and predictors of disposition from the EDOU and were identified with univariate and multivariate analyses. Most patients were discharged home, and discharged patients had low 72-hour revisit and 30-day mortality rates. Significant predictors of hospitalization were initial EDOU pain score (odds ratio (OR) = 1.12; 95% CI 1.06−1.19; p < 0.001) and supportive care (OR = 2.04; 95% CI 1.37−3.04; p < 0.001) or pain service (OR = 2.67; 95% CI 1.63−4.40; p < 0.001) consultations. We concluded that an EDOU appears to be the appropriate venue to care for a subsegment of patients presenting to an emergency department with cancer pain, with patients receiving safe care as well as appropriate consultation and admission when indicated.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Delirium, poor performance status, and dyspnea predict short survival in the palliative care setting. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine whether these three conditions, which we refer to as a "triple threat," also predict mortality among patients with advanced cancers in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The study sample included 243 randomly selected, clinically stable patients with advanced cancer who presented to our ED. The analysis included patients who had delirium (Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score ≥ 7), poor performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 3 or 4), or dyspnea as a presenting symptom. We obtained survival data from medical records. We calculated predicted probability of dying within 30 days and association with number of symptoms after the ED visit using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients died within 30 days after presenting to the ED. Death within 30 days occurred in 36% (16 of 44) of patients with delirium, 28% (17 of 61) of patients with poor performance status, and 14% (7 of 50) of patients with dyspnea, with a predicted probability of 30-day mortality of 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.53), 0.28 (95% CI 0.18-0.40), and 0.15 (95% CI 0.07-0.29), respectively. The predicted probability of death within 30 days for patients with two or three of the conditions was 0.49 (95% CI 0.34-0.66) vs. 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.09) for patients with none or one of the conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancers who present to the ED and have at least two triple threat conditions have a high probability of death within 30 days.
Assuntos
Delírio , Neoplasias , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Neoplasias/complicações , Dispneia/etiologia , Dispneia/diagnóstico , Delírio/diagnósticoRESUMO
Background: In this international multicenter study we aimed to determine the independent risk factors associated with increased 30-day mortality and the impact of novel treatment modalities in a large group of cancer and non-cancer patients with COVID-19 from multiple countries. Methods: We retrospectively collected de-identified data on a cohort of cancer and non-cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and November 2020, from 16 international centers. Results: We analyzed 3966 COVID-19 confirmed patients, 1115 cancer and 2851 non-cancer patients. Cancer patients were more likely to be pancytopenic, and have a smoking history, pulmonary disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and corticosteroid use in the preceding two weeks (p≤0.01). In addition, they were more likely to present with higher inflammatory biomarkers (D-dimer, ferritin and procalcitonin), but were less likely to present with clinical symptoms (p≤0.01). By multivariable logistic regression analysis, cancer was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.07; p=0.035). Older age (≥65 years) was the strongest predictor of 30-day mortality in all patients (OR 4.55; 95% CI 3.34 to6.20; p< 0.0001). Remdesivir was the only therapeutic agent independently associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR 0.58; CI 0.39-0.88; p=0.009). Among patients on low-flow oxygen at admission, patients who received remdesivir had a lower 30-day mortality rate than those who did not (5.9% vs 17.6%; p=0.03). Conclusions: Cancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality from COVID-19. Remdesivir, particularly in patients receiving low-flow oxygen, can reduce 30-day all-cause mortality. Condensed Abstract: In this large multicenter worldwide study of 4015 patients with COVID-19 that included 1115 patients with cancer, we found that cancer is an independent risk factor for increased 30-day all-cause mortality. Remdesivir is a promising treatment modality to reduce 30-day all-cause mortality.
RESUMO
Background: Central venous catheters raise the risk of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with cancer, typically affecting the upper extremity. Management of CRT involves catheter removal and anticoagulation. However, robust evidence is lacking on the optimal timing of anticoagulation relative to catheter removal. Objectives: Our goal is to provide a better understanding of the factors that increase the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all consecutive patients with cancer in our hospital affected by CRT between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. We measured recurrence of VTE as thrombosis in any vascular bed or pulmonary embolism, for up to 2 years after diagnosis. Logistic and competing risk regression analyses were used to determine the association between different clinical factors and any VTE recurrence in patients with cancer and CRT. Results: Of the 257 individuals meeting the inclusion criteria, 80.2% had their catheter removed; of these, 50.5% did not receive anticoagulation before the removal. Patients who did not receive anticoagulation before the removal had increased 3-month and 1-year risks of recurrent VTE (odds ratio, 5.07 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-23.18]; and hazard ratio, 3.47 [95% CI, 1.34-9.01]), respectively. Conclusions: Our study supports the use of anticoagulants before catheter removal in patients with CRT. Randomized clinical trials are recommended to establish stronger evidence pertaining to the long-term risk of VTE recurrence and the effect of catheter reinsertion.
RESUMO
Background: With increased use of antibiotics in high-risk patients, the investigation of new antibiotics to cover potentially resistant pathogens is warranted. In this prospective randomized trial, we compared ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), a new cephalosporin/ß-lactamase inhibitor, to the standard of care (SOC) for the empiric treatment of neutropenia and fever in patients with hematological malignancies. Methods: We enrolled 100 patients to receive intravenous (IV) C/T or SOC antibiotics (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, or meropenem) in combination with gram-positive antibacterial agents. We evaluated responses at the end of IV therapy (EOIV), test of cure (TOC; days 21-28), and late follow-up (LFU; days 35-42). Results: We analyzed 47 C/T patients and 50 SOC patients. C/T patients had a higher rate of favorable clinical response at EOIV (87% vs 72%). A 1-sided noninferiority analysis indicated that C/T was at least not inferior to the SOC for favorable clinical response at EOIV (Pâ =â .002), TOC (Pâ =â .004), and LFU (Pâ =â .002). Superiority tests showed that C/T led to significantly lower rates of clinical failure at TOC (6% vs 30%; Pâ =â .003) and LFU (9% vs 30%; Pâ =â .008). C/T and SOC patients with documented infections had similar rates of favorable microbiological response. Serious adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (2% vs 0%; Pâ =â .48) and overall mortality (6% vs 4%; Pâ =â .67) were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The empiric use of C/T in high-risk patients with hematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia is safe and associated with better clinical outcomes than SOC antimicrobial agents. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03485950.
RESUMO
The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the care of cancer patients. However, the response to ICI therapy exhibits substantial interindividual variability. Efforts have been directed to identify biomarkers that predict the clinical response to ICIs. In recent years, the gut microbiome has emerged as a critical player that influences the efficacy of immunotherapy. An increasing number of studies have suggested that the baseline composition of a patient's gut microbiota and its dysbiosis are correlated with the outcome of cancer immunotherapy. This review tackles the rapidly growing body of evidence evaluating the relationship between the gut microbiome and the response to ICI therapy. Additionally, this review highlights the impact of antibiotic-induced dysbiosis on ICI efficacy and discusses the possible therapeutic interventions to optimize the gut microbiota composition to augment immunotherapy efficacy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bupropion extended-release (XL; once-daily dosing) has equal efficacy with the sustained-release (SR) formulation (twice-daily dosing) for treating depression, but no studies have compared the two formulations for the treatment of smoking. In a naturalistic open-label study, we compared the effectiveness and the adverse event profiles of XL and SR in treating cancer patients for smoking. METHODS: Cancer patients (N = 648) were prescribed bupropion XL (n = 454) or SR (n = 194) alone or in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for treating smoking from September 2006 to December 2017. We analyzed 7-day point prevalence abstinence at end-of-treatment (EOT; 3 months postmedication initiation) and evaluated for noninferiority. We also analyzed the adverse event profile differences between the medications. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in abstinent rates at EOT between bupropion XL and SR when using intent-to-treat models, regardless of concomitant NRT. XL demonstrated noninferiority in treatment efficacy compared to SR when excluding those on combined treatment with NRT. Further, there were no significant differences in spontaneously reported adverse events between XL and SR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not reveal a difference between bupropion XL and SR formulations in terms of effectiveness or adverse event profiles among cancer patients prescribed bupropion alone or in combination with NRTs to quit smoking. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In this first published direct comparison of their effectiveness and adverse event profiles, we found that bupropion XL is likely therapeutically equivalent to bupropion SR when treating smoking among cancer patients, and produces similar side effects.
Assuntos
Neoplasias , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar , Bupropiona/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Fumar/efeitos adversos , Fumar/tratamento farmacológico , Fumar Tabaco , Dispositivos para o Abandono do Uso de Tabaco/efeitos adversosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a modified emergency severity index (mESI)-based triage of cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) and determine the associations between mESI level and ED disposition, hospital length of stay, and overall survival. METHODS: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for all patients who presented to our institution's ED between March 22, 2020, and March 12, 2021, and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 306 cancer patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 45% of patients triaged to level 2 (emergent) and 55% to level 3 (urgent). Among all patients, 61.8% were admitted to the hospital, 15.7% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 2.9% were sent for observation, and 19.6% were discharged. Although demographic and clinical characteristics did not significantly vary by triage level, we observed significant differences in ED length of stay (urgent = 6.67 h, emergent = 5.97 h; p < 0.01). Hospital and intensive care unit admission rates were also significantly higher among emergent patients than among urgent patients (p < 0.05). There were 75 deaths (urgent = 32; emergent = 43), and the 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher among emergent patients (urgent = 8%, emergent = 15%; p < 0.05). The mESI level persisted as a significant factor associated with overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-2.81) in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The mESI level is associated with ED disposition, ED length of stay, and overall survival in cancer patients presenting with COVID-19. These results indicate that the mESI triage tool can be effectively used in cancer patients with COVID-19, whose condition can rapidly deteriorate.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Triagem/métodosRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite recommended best practice guidelines, pain remains an ongoing but undertreated symptom in patients with cancer, many of whom require emergency department evaluation for acute oncologic pain. A significant proportion of these patients are hospitalized for pain management, which increases healthcare costs and exposes patients to the risks of hospitalization. We reviewed the literature on observation medicine: an emerging mode of healthcare delivery which can offer patients with acute pain access to a hospital's pain management solutions and specialists without an inpatient hospitalization. Specifically, we appraised the role of observation medicine in acute pain management and its financial implications in order to consider its potential impact on the management of acute oncologic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence shows that observation medicine has the potential to decrease short-stay hospitalizations in cancer patients presenting with various concerns, including pain. Observation medicine is reported to be successful in providing comprehensive and cost-effective care for non-cancer patients with acute pain, making it a promising alternative to short-stay hospitalizations for cancer patients with acute oncologic pain.
Assuntos
Dor Aguda , Dor Aguda/etiologia , Dor Aguda/terapia , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Hospitalização , Humanos , Manejo da DorRESUMO
PURPOSE: Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) have been shown to decrease length of stay and improve cost effectiveness. Yet, compared with noncancer patients, patients with cancer are placed in EDOUs less often. In this study, we aimed to describe patients who were placed in a cancer center's EDOU to discern their clinical characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study that included all patients age 18 years and older who presented to our emergency department (ED) and were placed in the EDOU between March 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020. The patients' electronic medical records were queried for demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis at the time of placement in the EDOU, length of stay, disposition from the EDOU, ED return within 72 hours after discharge from the EDOU, and mortality outcomes at 14 and 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 2,461 visits were eligible for analysis. Cancer-related pain was the main reason for observation in more than one quarter of the visits. The median length of stay in the EDOU was approximately 23 hours, and 69.6% of the patients were discharged. The ED return rate for unscheduled visits at 72 hours was 1.9%. The 14- and 30-day mortality rates were significantly higher for patients who were admitted than for those who were discharged (14 days: 1.7% v 0.3%, P < .001; 30 days: 5.9% v 1.8%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that placing patients with cancer in EDOUs is safe, reduces admissions, and reserves hospital resources for patients who can receive the most benefit without compromising care.
Assuntos
Unidades de Observação Clínica , Neoplasias , Adolescente , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Hospitalização , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Neoplasias/complicações , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/terapia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index has been utilized to determine the risk for poor clinical outcomes in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) in an emergency center (EC). However, this index comprises subjective elements and elaborated metrics limiting its use in ECs. We sought to determine whether procalcitonin (PCT) level (biomarker of bacterial infection) with or without lactate level (marker of inadequate tissue perfusion) offers a potential alternative to MASSC score in predicting the outcomes of patients with FN presenting to an EC. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 550 cancer patients with FN who presented to our EC between April 2018, and April 2019, and had serum PCT and lactate levels measured. RESULTS: Compared with patients with PCT levels <0.25 ng/ml, those with levels ≥0.25 ng/ml had a significantly higher 14-day mortality rate (5.2% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.002), a higher bloodstream infection (BSI) rate, and a longer hospital length of stay (LOS). Logistic regression analysis showed that patients with PCT levels ≥0.25 ng/ml and lactate levels >2.2 mmol/L were more likely to be admitted and have an LOS >7 days, BSI, and 14-day mortality than patients with lower levels. PCT level was a significantly better predictor of BSI than MASSC score (p = 0.003) or lactate level (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin level is superior to MASCC index in predicting BSI. The combination of PCT and lactate levels is a good predictor of BSI, hospital admission, and 14-day mortality and could be useful in identifying high-risk FN patients who require hospital admission.