Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in patients with cancer: current knowledge and future directions.

Patients with cancer experience higher rates of preventable harm from hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (haBSIs) and central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) compared with the general hospital population. The prevention of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer is an urgent priority, and requires standardized surveillance and reporting efforts. The application of haBSI and CLABSI definitions, classification systems and surveillance strategies for patients with cancer is complex, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Existing systems were not designed explicitly for patients with cancer, and have different strengths and weaknesses in the cancer setting. For these reasons, epidemiological estimates of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer also require careful interpretation. This complexity can be a barrier to identifying appropriate targets for intervention and reducing preventable harm. This review provides an overview of key concepts and challenges in haBSI surveillance and prevention specific to patients with cancer. In addition, this review summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used surveillance definitions and denominators in the setting of cancer care; existing surveillance practice; epidemiology of haBSIs and CLABSIs; prevention strategies; and current knowledge gaps. A global collaborative effort to harmonize the surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in patients with cancer would be invaluable to improve the accuracy and utility of existing data, advance efforts to prevent hospital-acquired infections, and improve patient safety.

A multicentred study to validate a consensus bleeding assessment tool developed by the biomedical excellence for safer transfusion collaborative for use in patients with haematological malignancy.

BACKGROUND: There continues to be uncertainty about the optimal approach to documenting bleeding data in platelet transfusion trials, with a desire to apply a common assessment tool across all trials. With this in mind, a consensus bleeding assessment tool (BAT) has been developed by the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative, based on review of data collection forms used in published randomized trials and following content validation with a range of healthcare professionals at seven haematology centres through BEST members. This study aimed to evaluate reliability and reproducibility of the consensus BAT. METHODS: Replicated clinical assessments of bleeding were undertaken by participants with haematological malignancies recruited at four haematology centres in an international, multicentred, observational study. Concordance of repeat assessments was calculated for agreement in site and grade of bleeding observed. RESULTS: Forty patients consented to participate, and 13 trained bleeding assessors collected these data. Bleeding assessments were carried out on 113 separate days. Of all 225 bleeding assessments, 204 were compared for grade concordance, and 160 were compared for site concordance. There was very good grade concordance (83%, 95% confidence interval 74-93%) and good bleeding site concordance (69%, 95% confidence interval 57-79%) in observations of bleeding. Discordance was primarily in relation to assessing skin bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Alongside a structured training programme, levels of concordance for a consensus BAT were high. Researchers using assessment tools for bleeding need to balance comprehensive data collection against potential loss of accuracy for some types of bleeding, such as skin findings.

Descriptive characteristics and in-hospital mortality of critically bleeding patients requiring massive transfusion: results from the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Critically bleeding patients requiring massive transfusion (MT) are clinically challenging, and limited data exist to support management decisions. This study describes patient characteristics, transfusion support and clinical outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand (NZ) Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, cohort study of all adult patients receiving MT (≥5 units red blood cells [RBC] in 4 h) at participating ANZ-MTR hospitals, 2011-2015. Mortality information was collected from the Australian National Death Index and NZ Ministry of Health. Associations between patient characteristics and outcomes were modelled using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 3560 MT cases were identified. For in-hospital deaths, cardiothoracic surgery was the most frequent bleeding context (24·5%) followed by trauma (18·3%). Age (OR = 1·03; 95% CI: 1·02-1·04), more comorbidities (OR = 1·14; 95% CI: 1·09-1·21), larger volume of RBC in first 24 h from MT onset (OR = 1·04; 95% CI: 1·02-1·06), higher platelet to RBC ratio at 4 h (OR = 2·76; 95% CI: 1·14-6·65) and higher activated partial thromboplastin time (OR = 1·02; 95% CI: 1·01-1·03) were associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with more comorbidities, older age, traumatic or surgical bleeding or requiring more blood components had higher in-hospital mortality. These findings provide a basis to evaluate and monitor practice relating to optimal use of blood products, variation in transfusion practices and patient outcomes, and also enable benchmarking of hospital performance for management of MT in specific patient groups.

Evaluation of clinical coding data to determine causes of critical bleeding in patients receiving massive transfusion: a bi-national, multicentre, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of routinely collected data to determine the cause(s) of critical bleeding in patients who receive massive transfusion (MT). BACKGROUND: Routinely collected data are increasingly being used to describe and evaluate transfusion practice. MATERIALS/METHODS: Chart reviews were undertaken on 10 randomly selected MT patients at 48 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand to determine the cause(s) of critical bleeding. Diagnosis-related group (DRG) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were extracted separately and used to assign each patient a cause of critical bleeding. These were compared against chart review using percentage agreement and kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 427 MT patients were included with complete ICD and DRG data for 427 (100%) and 396 (93%), respectively. Good overall agreement was found between chart review and ICD codes (78·3%; κ = 0·74, 95% CI 0·70-0·79) and only fair overall agreement with DRG (51%; κ = 0·45, 95% CI 0·40-0·50). Both ICD and DRG were sensitive and accurate for classifying obstetric haemorrhage patients (98% sensitivity and κ > 0·94). However, compared with the ICD algorithm, DRGs were less sensitive and accurate in classifying bleeding as a result of gastrointestinal haemorrhage (74% vs 8%; κ = 0·75 vs 0·1), trauma (92% vs 62%; κ = 0·78 vs 0·67), cardiac (80% vs 57%; κ = 0·79 vs 0·60) and vascular surgery (64% vs 56%; κ = 0·69 vs 0·65). CONCLUSION: Algorithms using ICD codes can determine the cause of critical bleeding in patients requiring MT with good to excellent agreement with clinical history. DRG are less suitable to determine critical bleeding causes.

Intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill adults: When and what is the evidence?

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) use is growing dramatically internationally due to the increasing numbers of acute and chronic conditions that may benefit from IVIg. Patients with conditions that may benefit from IVIg might require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, supporting the need to review IVIg use in the critical care setting. The most common clinical indications for IVIg in adults that may require ICU admission and are commonly supported under clinical practice guidelines are Guillain-Barré syndrome, myasthenia gravis and Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, inflammatory myopathies, and primary or secondary immunodeficiency diseases complicated by severe bacterial sepsis. Other emerging indications include necrotizing fasciitis, toxic epidermal necrolysis/Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. The evidence for IVIg use in sepsis and septic shock remains controversial and insufficient to recommend its routine use. Intravenous immunoglobulin is expensive and also carries risks of adverse effects, including common and benign infusion-related reactions, as well as relatively rare and more serious problems, such as thromboembolic events, renal failure, and aseptic meningitis. In this article, we review the literature on conditions requiring ICU admission and IVIg, and we classify them as supported, emerging, or unsupported indications based on the available evidence and guidelines for clinical use of IVIg.