Noninvasivepositive pressure ventilation vsinvasive mechanical ventilation as first-line therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The objective was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients who received noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs invasive mechanical ventilation as first-line therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult intensive care unit (ICU) cancer patients who received either conventional invasive mechanical ventilation or NIPPV as first-line therapy for hypoxemic respiratory failure. RESULTS: Of the 1614 patients included, the NIPPV failure group had the greatest hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality (71.3%), and hospital mortality (79.5%) as compared with the other 2 groups (P < .0001). The variables independently associated with NIPPV failure included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-0.99; P=.031), non-Caucasian race (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.26; P=.006), presence of a hematologic malignancy (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.64; P=.0003), and a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.17; P < .0001). There was no difference in mortality when comparing early vs late intubation (less than or greater than 24 or 48 hours) for the NIPPV failure group. CONCLUSION: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure is an independent risk factor for ICU mortality, but NIPPV patients who avoided intubation had the best outcomes compared with the other groups. Early vs late intubation did not have a significant impact on outcomes.

A spiral tack as a lead point for volvulus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We present a case of small bowel volvulus around an endotack applied during total extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair (TEP). This complication prompts reconsideration of the role of tacks during extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repairs. METHODS: We undertook a chart review and provide a case presentation with review of the literature. RESULT: A 66-year-old male with bilateral inguinal hernias underwent elective, bilateral, total extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair. During dissection, a small peritoneal tear occurred. The tear was closed with a spiral tack. On postoperative day 22, the patient developed an acute abdomen. Exploratory laparotomy revealed a volvulus rotated around an adhesion to the spiral tack. DISCUSSION: Volvulus can cause vascular compromise leading to bowel ischemia and necrosis. A tack resulting in adhesion and volvulus is an unusual, but serious, complication. Repair of a peritoneal tear during preperitoneal hernia repair is advocated to improve visualization obstructed by a pneumoperitonuem and decrease adhesions to the abdominal wall. CONCLUSION: The use of blunt Endoloops or crimps may prove safer than tacks for repairing the peritoneum and placement in proximity to delicate or thin tissues. Additionally, careful placement of foreign bodies to ensure their stability and to minimize protrusion may decrease the risk of erosion of the hardware.

High-flow oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure for persistent dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer: a phase II randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Dyspnea is one of the most distressing symptoms for cancer patients. The role of high-flow oxygen (HFO) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the palliation of dyspnea has not been well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of HFO and BiPAP in cancer patients and examine the changes in dyspnea, physiologic parameters, and adverse effects with these modalities. METHODS: In this randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01518140), we assigned hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and persistent dyspnea to either HFO or BiPAP for two hours. We assessed dyspnea with a numeric rating scale (NRS) and modified Borg scale (MBS) before and after the intervention. We also documented vital signs, transcutaneous carbon dioxide, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled (1:1 ratio) and 23 (77%) completed the assigned intervention. HFO was associated with improvements in both NRS (mean 1.9; 95% CI 0.4-3.4; P = 0.02) and MBS (mean 2.1; 95% CI 0.6-3.5; P = 0.007). BiPAP also was associated with improvements in NRS (mean 3.2; 95% CI 1.3-5.1; P = 0.004) and MBS (mean 1.5; 95% CI -0.3, 3.2; P = 0.13). There were no significant differences between HFO and BiPAP in dyspnea NRS (P = 0.14) and MBS (P = 0.47). Oxygen saturation improved with HFO (93% vs. 99%; P = 0.003), and respiratory rate had a nonstatistically significant decrease with both interventions (HFO -3, P = 0.11; BiPAP -2, P = 0.11). No significant adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSION: HFO and BiPAP alleviated dyspnea, improved physiologic parameters, and were safe. Our results justify larger randomized controlled trials to confirm these findings.

Dyspnea in hospitalized advanced cancer patients: subjective and physiologic correlates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unclear if physiologic measures are useful for assessing dyspnea. We examined the association among the subjective rating of dyspnea according to patients with advanced cancer, caregivers and nurses, and various physiologic measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer hospitalized at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We asked patients, caregivers, and nurses to assess the patients' dyspnea at the time of study enrollment independently using a numeric rating scale (0=none, 10=worst). Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) ratings, causes of dyspnea, vitals, and Respiratory Distress Observation Scale [RDOS] ratings were collected. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were enrolled in the study: average age 62 (range 20-98), female 47%, lung cancer 37%, and oxygen use 57%. The median RDOS rating was 2/16 (interquartile range 1-3) and the number of potential causes was 3 (range 2-4), with pleural effusion (n=166, 56%), pneumonia (n=144, 48%), and lung metastasis (n=125, 42%) being the most common. The median intensity of patients' dyspnea at the time of assessment was 3 (interquartile range 0-6) for patients, 4 (interquartile range 1-6) for caregivers, and 2 (interquartile range 0-3) for bedside nurses. Patients' expression of dyspnea correlated moderately with caregivers' (r=0.68, p<0.001) and nurses' (r=0.50, p<0.001) assessments, and weakly with RDOS (r=0.35, p<0.001), oxygen level (r=0.32, p<0.001), and the number of potential causes (r=0.19, p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, patients' dyspnea was only independently associated with ESAS dyspnea (p=0.002) and dyspnea as assessed by caregivers (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' level of dyspnea was weakly associated with physiologic measures. Caregivers' perception may be a useful surrogate for dyspnea assessment.