Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review.

Immunosuppressed patients, particularly those with cancer, represent a momentous and increasing portion of the population, especially as cancer incidence rises with population growth and aging. These patients are at a heightened risk of developing severe infections, including sepsis and septic shock, due to multiple immunologic defects such as neutropenia, lymphopenia, and T and B-cell impairment. The diverse and complex nature of these immunologic profiles, compounded by the concomitant use of immunosuppressive therapies (e.g., corticosteroids, cytotoxic drugs, and immunotherapy), superimposed by the breakage of natural protective barriers (e.g., mucosal damage, chronic indwelling catheters, and alterations of anatomical structures), increases the risk of various infections. These and other conditions that mimic sepsis pose substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Factors that elevate the risk of progression to septic shock in these patients include advanced age, pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, type of cancer, the severity of immunosuppression, hypoalbuminemia, hypophosphatemia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and type and timing of responses to initial treatment. The management of vulnerable cancer patients with sepsis or septic shock varies due to biased clinical practices that may result in delayed access to intensive care and worse outcomes. While septic shock is typically associated with poor outcomes in patients with malignancies, survival has significantly improved over time. Therefore, understanding and addressing the unique needs of cancer patients through a new paradigm, which includes the integration of innovative technologies into our healthcare system (e.g., wireless technologies, medical informatics, precision medicine), targeted management strategies, and robust clinical practices, including early identification and diagnosis, coupled with prompt admission to high-level care facilities that promote a multidisciplinary approach, is crucial for improving their prognosis and overall survival rates.

Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of "flow-sizing" capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective "flow-sizing" of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to "flow-sizing" has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

Management of respiratory failure in immune checkpoint inhibitors-induced overlap syndrome: a case series and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor-induced overlap syndrome ([OS] myocarditis, and myositis with or without myasthenia gravis) is rare but life-threatening. CASES PRESENTATION: Here we present a case series of four cancer patients that developed OS. High troponinemia raised the concern for myocarditis in all the cases. However, the predominant clinical feature differed among the cases. Two patients showed marked myocarditis with a shorter hospital stay. The other two patients had a prolonged ICU stay due to severe neuromuscular involvement secondary to myositis and myasthenia gravis. Treatment was based on steroids, plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, and immunosuppressive biological agents. CONCLUSION: The management of respiratory failure is challenging, particularly in those patients with predominant MG. Along with intensive clinical monitoring, bedside respiratory mechanics can guide the decision-making process of selecting a respiratory support method, the timing of elective intubation and extubation.

Critically Ill Patients Treated for Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Related Toxicity: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of adult patients admitted to the ICU after cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nine centers across the U.S. part of the chimeric antigen receptor-ICU initiative. PATIENTS: Adult patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy who required ICU admission between November 2017 and May 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Demographics, toxicities, specific interventions, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: One-hundred five patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel required ICU admission for cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome during the study period. At the time of ICU admission, the majority of patients had grade 3-4 toxicities (66.7%); 15.2% had grade 3-4 cytokine release syndrome and 64% grade 3-4 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. During ICU stay, cytokine release syndrome was observed in 77.1% patients and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 84.8% of patients; 61.9% patients experienced both toxicities. Seventy-nine percent of patients developed greater than or equal to grade 3 toxicities during ICU stay, however, need for vasopressors (18.1%), mechanical ventilation (10.5%), and dialysis (2.9%) was uncommon. Immune Effector Cell-Associated Encephalopathy score less than 3 (69.7%), seizures (20.2%), status epilepticus (5.7%), motor deficits (12.4%), and cerebral edema (7.9%) were more prevalent. ICU mortality was 8.6%, with only three deaths related to cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Median overall survival time was 10.4 months (95% CI, 6.64-not available mo). Toxicity grade or organ support had no impact on overall survival; higher cumulative corticosteroid doses were associated to decreased overall and progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe a multicenter cohort of patients requiring ICU admission with cytokine release syndrome or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Despite severe toxicities, organ support and in-hospital mortality were low in this patient population.

Outcomes and Predictors of 28-Day Mortality in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies and Septic Shock Defined by Sepsis-3 Criteria.

BACKGROUND: To describe short-term outcomes and independent predictors of 28-dayx mortality in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and septic shock defined by the new Third International Consensus Definitions (Sepsis-3) criteria. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock from April 2016 to March 2019. Demographic and clinical features and short-term outcomes were collected. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient characteristics, logistic regression to identify predictors of 28-day mortality, and Kaplan-Meier plots to assess survival. RESULTS: Among the 459 hematologic patients with septic shock admitted to the ICU, 109 (23.7%) had received hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The median age was 63 years (range, 18-89 years), and 179 (39%) were women. Nonsurvivors had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (P=.007), longer length of stay before ICU admission (P=.01), and greater illness severity at diagnosis and throughout the hospital course (P<.001). The mortality rate at 28 days was 67.8% and increased with increasing sequential organ failure assessment score on admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20), respiratory failure (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49-6.51), and maximum lactate level (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22). Aminoglycosides administration (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69), serum albumin (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86), and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65) were associated with lower 28-day mortality. Life support limitations were present in 81.6% of patients at death. At 90 days, 19.4% of the patients were alive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to enhance survival, septic shock in patients with hematologic malignancies is still associated with high mortality rates and poor 90-day survival. These results demonstrate the need for an urgent call to action with higher awareness, including the further evaluation of interventions such as earlier ICU admission, aminoglycosides administration, and G-CSF treatment.

Derivation and performance of an end-of-life practice score aimed at interpreting worldwide treatment-limiting decisions in the critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Limitations of life-sustaining interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) exhibit substantial changes over time, and large, contemporary variation across world regions. We sought to determine whether a weighted end-of-life practice score can explain a large, contemporary, worldwide variation in limitation decisions. METHODS: The 2015-2016 (Ethicus-2) vs. 1999-2000 (Ethicus-1) comparison study was a two-period, prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 4952 patients from 22 European ICUs. The worldwide Ethicus-2 study was a single-period prospective observational study assessing the frequency of limitation decisions in 12,200 patients from 199 ICUs situated in 8 world regions. Binary end-of-life practice variable data (1 = presence; 0 = absence) were collected post hoc (comparison study, 22/22 ICUs, n = 4592; worldwide study, 186/199 ICUs, n = 11,574) for family meetings, daily deliberation for appropriate level of care, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings, written triggers for limitations, written ICU end-of-life guidelines and protocols, palliative care and ethics consultations, ICU-staff taking communication or bioethics courses, and national end-of-life guidelines and legislation. Regarding the comparison study, generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis was used to determine associations between the 12 end-of-life practice variables and treatment limitations. The weighted end-of-life practice score was then calculated using GEE-derived coefficients of the end-of-life practice variables. Subsequently, the weighted end-of-life practice score was validated in GEE analysis using the worldwide study dataset. RESULTS: In comparison study GEE analyses, end-of-life discussions during weekly meetings [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.99], end-of-life guidelines [OR 0.52, (0.31-0.87)] and protocols [OR 15.08, (3.88-58.59)], palliative care consultations [OR 2.63, (1.23-5.60)] and end-of-life legislation [OR 3.24, 1.60-6.55)] were significantly associated with limitation decisions (all P < 0.05). In worldwide GEE analyses, the weighted end-of-life practice score was significantly associated with limitation decisions [OR 1.12 (1.03-1.22); P = 0.008]. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison study-derived, weighted end-of-life practice score partly explained the worldwide study's variation in treatment limitations. The most important components of the weighted end-of-life practice score were ICU end-of-life protocols, palliative care consultations, and country end-of-life legislation.

All-cause mortality in cancer patients treated for sepsis in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Sepsis is a common complication in patients with cancer, but studies evaluating the outcomes of critically ill cancer patients with sepsis on a global scale are limited. We aimed to summarize the existing evidence on mortality rates in this patient population. METHODS: Prospective and retrospective observational studies evaluating critically ill adult cancer patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and/or septic shock were included. Studies published from January 2010 to September 2021 that reported at least one mortality outcome were retrieved from MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane databases. Study selection, bias assessment, and data collection were performed independently by two reviewers, and any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We calculated pooled intensive care unit (ICU), hospital, and 28/30-day mortality rates. The heterogeneity of the data was tested using the chi-square test, with a P value < 0.10 indicating significant heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 5464 citations were reviewed, of which 10 studies met the inclusion criteria; these studies included 6605 patients. All studies had a Newcastle-Ottawa scale score of 7 or higher. The mean patient age ranged from 51.4 to 64.9 years. The pooled ICU, hospital, and 28/30 day mortality rates were 48% (95% CI, 43- 53%; I2 = 80.6%), 62% (95% CI, 58-67%; I2 = 0%), and 50% (95% CI, 38- 62%; I2 = 98%), respectively. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed. CONCLUSION: Critically ill cancer patients with sepsis had poor survival, with a hospital mortality rate of about two-thirds. The substantial observed heterogeneity among studies could be attributed to variability in the criteria used to define sepsis as well as variability in treatment, the severity of illness, and care across settings. Our results are a call to action to identify strategies that improve outcomes for cancer patients with sepsis.

Hospital readmissions and emergency department re-presentation of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review.

Objective: To characterize the frequency, causes, and predictors of readmissions of COVID-19 patients after discharge from heath facilities or emergency departments, interventions used to reduce readmissions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients discharged from such settings. Methods: We performed a systematic review for case series and observational studies published between January 2020 and April 2021 in PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and MedRxiv, reporting the frequency, causes, or risk factors for readmission of COVID-19 survivors/patients. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed the methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal checklist. Results: We identified 44 studies including data from 10 countries. The overall 30-day median readmission rate was 7.1%. Readmissions varied with the length of follow-up, occurring <10.5%, <14.5%, <21.5%, and <30%, respectively, for 10, 30, 60, and 253 days following discharge. Among those followed up for 30 and 60 days, the median time from discharge to readmission was 3 days and 8-11 days, respectively. The significant risk factor associated with readmission was having shorter length of stay, and the important causes included respiratory or thromboembolic events and chronic illnesses. Emergency department re-presentation was >20% in four studies. Risk factors associated with mortality were male gender, advanced age, and comorbidities. Conclusions: Readmission of COVID-19 survivors is frequent, and post-discharge mortality is significant in specific populations. There is an urgent need to further examine underlying reasons for early readmission and to prevent additional readmissions and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 survivors.

Mindfulness as an Antidote to Burnout for Nursing and Support Staff in an Oncological Intensive Care Unit: A Pilot Study.

We set out to implement a pilot mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) to alleviate burnout, stress, anxiety, and depression in nursing and support staff of an oncological intensive care unit. We created an 8-week personalized yoga therapy MBI for nurses and patient care technicians in an oncological intensive care unit. Validated self-report scale tools were used to measure burnout, stress, anxiety, and depression in the intervention and control groups (Institutional Quality Improvement Registry no. 296, 2018). Changes in scores from baseline to postintervention were evaluated between groups. Forty-five staff, 21 in the control group and 24 in the intervention group, participated. Both groups at baseline had low prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression (13% vs 36.8%, P = .11; 21.7% vs 52.6%, P = .17; 17.4% vs 26.3%, P = .48; respectively). Low rates of high emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low professional efficacy were observed for both groups (41.7% vs 35.0%, P = .65; 20.8% vs 15%, P = .71; 58.3% vs 50.0%, P = .58, respectively). Post-MBI, prevalence of depression, anxiety, stress, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization remained low and similar between both groups. Notwithstanding, professional efficacy scores significantly improved in a between-group comparison (0.063 vs -0.25; P = .0336). We observed that burnout, stress, anxiety, and depression were remarkably low in our study relative to the literature. Implementation of the MBI faced many obstacles and had low compliance during participation. This presumably influenced results and should be addressed prior to any future intervention. Despite this, professional efficacy improved significantly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Approved by MD Anderson Cancer Center Quality Improvement Registry (no. 296, 2018).

Humanizing the intensive care unit experience in a comprehensive cancer center: A patient- and family-centered improvement study.

OBJECTIVES: Improving family-centered outcomes is a priority in oncologic critical care. As part of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Collaborative, we implemented patient- and family-centered initiatives in a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was created to implement the initiatives. We instituted an open visitation policy (OVP) that revamped the use of the two-way communication boards and enhanced the waiting room experience by hosting ICU family-centered events. To assess the initiatives' effects, we carried out pre-intervention (PRE) and post-intervention (POST) family/caregiver and ICU practitioner surveys. RESULTS: A total of 159 (PRE = 79, POST = 80) family members and 147 (PRE = 95, POST = 52) ICU practitioners participated. Regarding the decision-making process, family members felt more included (40.5% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001) and more supported (29.1% vs. 48.8%, p = 0.011) after the implementation of the initiatives. The caregivers also felt more control over the decision-making process in the POST survey (34.2% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.005). Although 33% of the ICU staff considered OVP was beneficial for the ICU, 41% disagreed and 26% were neutral. Only half of them responded that OVP was beneficial for patients and 63% agreed that OVP was beneficial for families. Half of the practitioners agreed that OVP resulted in additional work for staff. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our project effectively promoted patient- and family-centered care. The families expressed satisfaction with the communication of information and the decision-making process. However, the ICU staff felt that the initiatives increased their work load. Further research is needed to understand whether making this project universal or introducing additional novel practices would significantly benefit patients admitted to the ICU and their family.

Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion is a predictor of mortality for septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac dysfunction is a common sequela in patients with sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction. Echocardiography is commonly used in the investigation of circulatory failure. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of echocardiographic parameters in patients with septic shock. METHODS: This study was a retrospective trial. We included patients who were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with septic shock. The patients' echocardiograms, clinical data and outcomes were obtained from their medical records. Associations between echocardiogram variables and mortality were assessed using logistic regression, controlled for age, sex, body mass index and the interval between the ICU admission and echocardiogram. The utility of statistically significant echocardiogram variables to predict mortality were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The outcomes presented that tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) was statistically significantly associated with both ICU (P = 0.02) and 90-day (P = 0.001) mortality. From the ROC curves, TAPSE emerged a significant and moderate predictor for 90-day (area under curve (AUC) = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.565-0.814) and in-ICU mortality (AUC = 0.762, 95% CI = 0.652-0.871). The optimal cut-off for TAPSE was 2.1 cm for both 90-day mortality (sensitivity of 80% and specificity and 58%) and in-ICU mortality (sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 77%). CONCLUSIONS: TAPSE was associated with increased mortality in those with sepsis and suspicion of cardiac dysfunction. This is a hypothesis generating article that an association may be present and requires significant more work with expansion to the entire population base.

Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently overwhelming the world's healthcare systems. This article provides practical guidance to front-line physicians forced to make critical rationing decisions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline search for scientific literature, reviews, and guidance documents related to epidemic ICU triage including from professional bodies. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies, reviews, and guidelines were selected and reviewed by all authors and discussed by internet conference and email. DATA EXTRACTION: References and data were based on relevance and author consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: We review key challenges of resource-driven triage and data from affected ICUs. We recommend that once available resources are maximally extended, triage is justified utilizing a strategy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. A triage algorithm based on clinical estimations of the incremental survival benefit (saving the most life-years) provided by ICU care is proposed. "First come, first served" is used to choose between individuals with equal priorities and benefits. The algorithm provides practical guidance, is easy to follow, rapidly implementable and flexible. It has four prioritization categories: performance score, ASA score, number of organ failures, and predicted survival. Individual units can readily adapt the algorithm to meet local requirements for the evolving pandemic. Although the algorithm improves consistency and provides practical and psychologic support to those performing triage, the final decision remains a clinical one. Depending on country and operational circumstances, triage decisions may be made by a triage team or individual doctors. However, an experienced critical care specialist physician should be ultimately responsible for the triage decision. Cautious discharge criteria are proposed acknowledging the difficulties to facilitate the admission of queuing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individual institutions may use this guidance to develop prospective protocols that assist the implementation of triage decisions to ensure fairness, enhance consistency, and decrease provider moral distress.

Critical Care Management of Toxicities Associated With Targeted Agents and Immunotherapies for Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the most common serious adverse effects and organ toxicities associated with emerging therapies for cancer that may necessitate admission to the ICU. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: PubMed and Medline search of relevant articles in English on the management of adverse effects of immunotherapy for cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Targeted therapies including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, checkpoint inhibitors, and immune effector cell therapy have improved the outcome and quality of life of patients with cancer. However, severe and life-threatening side effects can occur. These toxicities include infusion or hypersensitivity reactions, cytokine release syndrome, pulmonary, cardiac, renal, hepatic, and neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, opportunistic infections, and endocrinopathies. Cytokine release syndrome is the most common serious toxicity after administration of monoclonal antibodies and immune effector cell therapies. Most of the adverse events from immunotherapy results from an exaggerated T-cell response directed against normal tissue, resulting in the generation of high levels of proinflammatory cytokines. Toxicities from targeted therapies are usually secondary to "on target toxicities." Management is largely supportive and may include discontinuation of the specific agent, corticosteroids, and other immune suppressing agents for severe (grade 3 or 4) immune-related adverse events like neurotoxicity and pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of toxicities associated with modern targeted and immunotherapeutic agents for cancer require a multidisciplinary approach among ICU staff, oncologists, and organ specialists and adoption of standardized treatment protocols to ensure the best possible patient outcomes.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements About Pain Management in Critically Ill End-of-Life Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize available recommendations from scientific societies and experts on pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Biblioteca Virtual en Salud from their inception until March 28, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included all clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and benchmarks for quality. DATA EXTRACTION: Study selection, methodological quality, and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators. A quality assessment was performed by four investigators using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The recommendations were then synthesized and categorized. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten publications were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II statement showed low scores in various quality domains, especially in the applicability and rigor of development. Most documents were in agreement on five topics: 1) using a quantitative tool for pain assessment; 2) administering narcotics for pain relief and benzodiazepines for anxiety relief; 3) against prescribing neuromuscular blockers during withdrawal of life support to assess pain; 4) endorsing the use of high doses of opioids and sedatives for pain control, regardless of the risk that they will hasten death; and 5) using quality indicators to improve pain management during end-of-life in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the lack of high-quality evidence, recommendations for pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU are homogeneous and are justified by ethical principles and agreement among experts. Considering the growing demand for the involvement of palliative care teams in the management of the dying patients in the ICU, there is a need to clearly define their early involvement and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based pain management strategies. Based on the study findings, we propose a management algorithm to improve the overall care of dying critically ill patients.

Out-of-Hospital ICU Transfers to an Oncological Referral Center: Characteristics, Resource Utilization, and Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:: To determine resource utilization and outcomes of out-of-hospital transfer patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a cancer referral center. DESIGN:: Single-center cohort. SETTING:: A tertiary oncological center. PATIENTS:: Patients older than 18 years transferred to our ICU from an outside hospital between January 2013 and December 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: A total of 2127 (90.3%) were emergency department (ED) ICU admissions and 228 (9.7%) out-of-hospital transfers. The ICU length of stay (LOS) was longer in the out-of-hospital transfers when compared to all other ED ICU admissions ( P = .001); however, ICU and hospital mortality were similar between both groups. The majority of patients were transferred for a higher level of care (77.2%); there was no difference in the amount of interventions performed, ICU LOS, and ICU mortality between nonhigher level-of-care and higher level-of-care patients. Factors associated with an ICU LOS ≥10days were a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, weekend admissions, presence of shock, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury on admission or during ICU stay ( P < .008). The ICU mortality of transferred patients was 17.5% and associated risk factors were older age, higher SOFA score on admission, use of mechanical ventilation and vasopressors during ICU stay, and renal failure on admission ( P < .0001). Data related to the transfer such as LOS at the outside facility, time of transfer, delay in transfer, and longer distance traveled were not associated with increased LOS or mortality in our study. CONCLUSION:: Organ failure severity on admission, and not transfer-related factors, continues to be the best predictor of outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer when transferred from other facilities to the ICU. Our data suggest that transferring critically ill patients with cancer to a specialized center does not lead to worse outcomes or increased resource utilization when compared to patients admitted from the ED.

Changes in End-of-Life Practices in European Intensive Care Units From 1999 to 2016.

IMPORTANCE: End-of-life decisions occur daily in intensive care units (ICUs) around the world, and these practices could change over time. OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in end-of-life practices in European ICUs after 16 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ethicus-2 was a prospective observational study of 22 European ICUs previously included in the Ethicus-1 study (1999-2000). During a self-selected continuous 6-month period at each ICU, consecutive patients who died or had any limitation of life-sustaining therapy from September 2015 until October 2016 were included. Patients were followed up until death or until 2 months after the first treatment limitation decision. EXPOSURES: Comparison between the 1999-2000 cohort vs 2015-2016 cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: End-of-life outcomes were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories (withholding of life-prolonging therapy, withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy, active shortening of the dying process, failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], brain death). The primary outcome was whether patients received any treatment limitations (withholding or withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy or shortening of the dying process). Outcomes were determined by senior intensivists. RESULTS: Of 13 625 patients admitted to participating ICUs during the 2015-2016 study period, 1785 (13.1%) died or had limitations of life-prolonging therapies and were included in the study. Compared with the patients included in the 1999-2000 cohort (n = 2807), the patients in 2015-2016 cohort were significantly older (median age, 70 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 59-79] vs 67 years [IQR, 54-75]; P < .001) and the proportion of female patients was similar (39.6% vs 38.7%; P = .58). Significantly more treatment limitations occurred in the 2015-2016 cohort compared with the 1999-2000 cohort (1601 [89.7%] vs 1918 [68.3%]; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.2% to 23.6%]; P < .001), with more withholding of life-prolonging therapy (892 [50.0%] vs 1143 [40.7%]; difference, 9.3% [95% CI, 6.4% to 12.3%]; P < .001), more withdrawing of life-prolonging therapy (692 [38.8%] vs 695 [24.8%]; difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 11.2% to 16.8%]; P < .001), less failed CPR (110 [6.2%] vs 628 [22.4%]; difference, -16.2% [95% CI, -18.1% to -14.3%]; P < .001), less brain death (74 [4.1%] vs 261 [9.3%]; difference, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.6% to -3.8%]; P < .001) and less active shortening of the dying process (17 [1.0%] vs 80 [2.9%]; difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -2.7% to -1.1%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients who had treatment limitations or died in 22 European ICUs in 2015-2016, compared with data reported from the same ICUs in 1999-2000, limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly more frequently and death without limitations in life-prolonging therapies occurred significantly less frequently. These findings suggest a shift in end-of-life practices in European ICUs, but the study is limited in that it excluded patients who survived ICU hospitalization without treatment limitations.

Management of the Critically Ill Adult Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T Cell Therapy Patient: A Critical Care Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, a type of immune effector therapy for cancer, has demonstrated encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. Nevertheless, there are toxicities specific to these treatments that, if not recognized and treated appropriately, can lead to multiple organ failure and death. This article is a comprehensive review of the available literature and provides, from a critical care perspective, recommendations by experienced intensivists in the care of critically ill adult chimeric antigen receptor T-cell patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline search of articles published from 2006 to date. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies, reviews, or guidelines were selected and reviewed by the authors. DATA EXTRACTION: Not available. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not available. CONCLUSIONS: Until modifications in chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy decrease their toxicities, the intensivist will play a leading role in the management of critically ill chimeric antigen receptor T-cell patients. As this novel immunotherapeutic approach becomes widely available, all critical care clinicians need to be familiar with the recognition and management of complications associated with this treatment.

Prognostic Index for Critically Ill Allogeneic Transplantation Patients.

Outcomes of intensive care for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Allo-SCT) patients remain poor. Better selection of critically ill Allo-SCT patients for intensive care may alleviate costs to the patients, families, and the health care system. We aimed to develop a prognostic index tailored for critically ill Allo-SCT patients as traditional instruments are of limited value in this setting. Six hundred fifty-six Allo-SCT patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2001 and 2010 were divided into training and test sets. Of the 3 multivariable regression models built to predict hospital mortality in the training set, the model with the largest area under receiver operating curve (AUC) in the test set was selected as the prognostic index for intensive care after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PICAT). The parameters included in the regression model with the highest AUC (.81) were time to ICU from hospital admission, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin, albumin, reason for ICU admission, prothrombin time-international normalized ratio, conditioning intensity, age, and comorbidity score. AUC for hospital mortality of PICAT (.80) was significantly larger than that of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) (.61) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) (.72) in all patients. Hospital mortality and median overall survival of patients with PICAT scores of 0 to 2 (n = 141), >2 to 4 (n = 242), and >4 (n = 182) were 34%, 69%, and 91%; and 7.59, .67, and .30 months, respectively. PICAT has good calibration and accuracy in predicting mortality for Allo-SCT patients requiring intensive care. Its AUC was significantly higher than APACHE II and SOFA scores and is also associated with overall survival.