Long-Term Survival of Patients With Cancer, Sepsis, and Vasopressor Requirements Based on Lactate Levels.

A prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the 1-year survival of cancer patients with sepsis and vasopressor requirements. Eligible patients were admitted a Comprehensive Cancer Center's ICU and were compared based on their admission lactate levels. Of the 132 included patients, 87 (66%) had high lactate (HL; > 2.0 mmol/L), and 45 (34%) had normal lactate (NL; ≤ 2.0 mmol/L). The 1-year survival rates of the two groups were similar (HL 16% vs. NL 18%; p = 0.0921). After adjustment for ICU baseline characteristics, HL was not significantly associated with a 1-year survival (Hazards ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.05). Critically ill cancer patients with sepsis and vasopressor requirements, regardless of the lactate level, had 1-year survival of less than 20%. Large multicenter cancer registries would enable to confirm our findings and better understand the long-term trajectories of sepsis in this vulnerable population.

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.

Association of plasma volume status with outcomes in hospitalized Covid-19 ARDS patients: A retrospective multicenter observational study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of estimated plasma volume (ePV) and plasma volume status (PVS) on admission with the outcomes in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective multi-center study on COVID-19-related ARDS patients who were admitted to the Mayo Clinic Enterprise health system. Plasma volume was calculated using the formulae for ePV and PVS, and these variables were analyzed for correlation with patient outcomes. RESULTS: Our analysis included 1298 patients with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) respiratory score ≥ 2 (PaO2/FIO2 ≤300 mmHg) and a mortality rate of 25.96%. A Cox proportional multivariate analysis showed PVS but not ePV as an independent correlation with 90-day mortality after adjusting for the covariates (HR: 1.015, 95% CI: 1.005-1.025, p = 0.002 and HR 1.054, 95% CI 0.958-1.159, p = 0.278 respectively). CONCLUSION: A lower PVS on admission correlated with a greater chance of survival in COVID-19-related ARDS patients. The role of PVS in guiding fluid management should be investigated in future prospective studies.

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.

Clinical Characteristics and Cause of Death Among Hospitalized Decedents With Cancer and COVID-19.

There is scant information on the clinical progression, end-of-life decisions, and cause of death of patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19. Therefore, we conducted a case series of patients admitted to a comprehensive cancer center who did not survive their hospitalization. To determine the cause of death, 3 board-certified intensivists reviewed the electronic medical records. Concordance regarding cause of death was calculated. Discrepancies were resolved through a joint case-by-case review and discussion among the 3 reviewers. During the study period, 551 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were admitted to a dedicated specialty unit; among them, 61 (11.6%) were nonsurvivors. Among nonsurvivors, 31 (51%) patients had hematologic cancers, and 29 (48%) had undergone cancer-directed chemotherapy within 3 months before admission. The median time to death was 15 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8 to 18.2). There were no differences in time to death by cancer category or cancer treatment intent. The majority of decedents (84%) had full code status at admission; however, 53 (87%) had do-not-resuscitate orders at the time of death. Most deaths were deemed to be COVID-19 related (88.5%). The concordance between the reviewers for the cause of death was 78.7%. In contrast to the belief that COVID-19 decedents die because of their comorbidities, in our study only 1 of every 10 patients died of cancer-related causes. Full-scale interventions were offered to all patients irrespective of oncologic treatment intent. However, most decedents in this population preferred care with nonresuscitative measures rather than full support at the end of life.

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.

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

[ABSTRACT]. 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 sig- nificant 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-presenta- tion 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.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Caracterizar la frecuencia, las causas y los factores predictores del reingreso de pacientes con COVID–19 tras haber recibido el alta de un centro de salud o un servicio de urgencias, las intervenciones utilizadas para reducir los reingresos y los resultados de los pacientes con COVID-19 dados de alta de dichos entornos. Métodos. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de estudios de serie de casos y estudios observacionales publi- cados entre enero del 2020 y abril del 2021 en PubMed, Embase, LILACS y MedRxiv en los cuales se informó sobre la frecuencia, las causas o los factores de riesgo relativos al reingreso de pacientes y sobrevivientes de COVID-19. Se realizó una síntesis narrativa y se evaluó la calidad metodológica utilizando la lista de verifi- cación de evaluación crítica de JBI. Resultados. Se encontraron 44 estudios con datos de 10 países. La tasa media general de reingreso a los 30 días fue de 7,1%. Los reingresos variaron con la duración del seguimiento, y tuvieron lugar en <10,5%, <14,5%, <21,5% y <30%, respectivamente, a los 10, 30, 60 y 253 días después del alta. Entre los que reci- bieron seguimiento por 30 y 60 días, el tiempo medio entre el alta y la readmisión fue de 3 y de 8 a 11 días, respectivamente. El factor de riesgo significativo asociado al reingreso fue una estancia más corta, y entre las causas importantes se encontraron episodios respiratorios o tromboembólicos y enfermedades crónicas. El reingreso en el servicio de urgencias fue de >20% en cuatro estudios. Los factores de riesgo asociados con la mortalidad fueron sexo masculino, edad avanzada y comorbilidades. Conclusión. El reingreso de sobrevivientes de COVID-19 es frecuente, y la mortalidad después del alta es significativa en grupos poblacionales específicos. Existe una necesidad urgente de seguir examinando las razones subyacentes del reingreso temprano, así como de prevenir reingresos adicionales y resultados adversos en los sobrevivientes de COVID–19.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Caracterizar a frequência, as causas e os preditores de reinternação de pacientes com COVID-19 após a alta do estabelecimento de saúde ou do pronto-socorro, intervenções usadas para reduzir reinter- nações e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 que receberam alta de tais instalações. Métodos. Revisão sistemática de séries de casos e estudos observacionais publicados entre janeiro de 2020 e abril de 2021, indexados nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, LILACS e MedRxiv, que relatassem a fre- quência, as causas ou os fatores de risco para a reinternação de sobreviventes da COVID-19/pacientes com COVID-19. Realizamos uma síntese narrativa das evidências e avaliamos a qualidade metodológica utilizando a checklist de avaliação crítica do Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Resultados. Foram identificados 44 estudos, incluindo dados de 10 países. O índice médio geral de reinter- nação em 30 dias foi de 7,1%. A frequência das reinternações variou com o tempo de acompanhamento, com <10,5%, <14,5%, <21,5% e <30%, respectivamente, ocorrendo nos primeiros 10, 30, 60 e 253 dias após a alta. Dentre aqueles seguidos por 30 e 60 dias, o tempo médio da alta até a reinternação foi de 3 dias e 8 a 11 dias, respectivamente. O único fator de risco significativamente associado à reinternação foi ter um tempo de permanência hospitalar mais curto, e as causas importantes incluíram eventos respiratórios ou tromboembóli- cos e doenças crônicas. Em quatro estudos, >20% dos pacientes retornaram ao pronto-socorro. Os fatores de risco associados à mortalidade foram sexo masculino, idade avançada e comorbidades. Conclusões. A reinternação hospitalar é frequente em sobreviventes da COVID-19 e a mortalidade pós-alta é significativa em populações específicas. Há uma necessidade urgente de examinar melhor as razões que levam à reinternação precoce e de evitar reinternações adicionais e desfechos adversos em sobreviventes da COVID-19.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating Geographical Variation in Outcomes of Cancer Patients Treated in ICUs.

The reported mortality rates of cancer patients admitted to ICUs vary widely. In addition, there are no studies that examined the outcomes of critically ill cancer patients based on the geographical regions. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the mortality rates among critically ill cancer patients and provide a comparison based on geography. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included observational studies evaluating adult patients with cancer treated in ICUs. We excluded non-English studies, those with greater than 30% hematopoietic stem cell transplant or postsurgical patients, and those that evaluated a specific type of critical illness, stage of malignancy, or age group. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. Studies were classified based on the continent in which they were conducted. Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. We pooled effect sizes by geographical region. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-six studies were included (n = 110,366). The overall quality of studies was moderate. Most of the published literature was from Europe (n = 22), followed by North America (n = 9), Asia (n = 8), South America (n = 5), and Oceania (n = 2). Pooled ICU mortality rate was 38% (95% CI, 33-43%); the lowest mortality rate was in Oceania (26%; 95% CI, 22-30%) and highest in Asia (51%; 95% CI, 44-57%). Pooled hospital mortality rate was 45% (95% CI, 41-49%), with the lowest in North America (37%; 95% CI, 31-43%) and highest in Asia (54%; 95% CI, 37-71%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of cancer patients admitted to ICUs survived hospitalization. However, there was wide variability in the mortality rates, as well as the number of available studies among geographical regions. This variability suggests an opportunity to improve outcomes worldwide, through optimizing practice and research.

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).

Outcomes and Predictors of 28-Day Mortality in Patients With Solid Tumors and Septic Shock Defined by Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Data assessing outcomes of patients with solid tumors demonstrating septic shock using the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock are scarce. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the independent predictors of 28-day mortality in critically ill adults with solid tumors and septic shock? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cohort of solid tumor patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Demographic and clinical characteristics were gathered from the electronic health records. We developed a reduced multivariate logistics regression model to identify independent predictors of 28-day mortality and used Kaplan-Meier plots to assess survival. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients were included. The median age was 62 years (range, 19-94 years); 57.2% were men and 53.5% were White. The most common underlying malignancies were lung (19.2%), breast (7.7%), pancreatic (7.7%), and colorectal (7.4%) cancers. Most patients (84.5%) harbored metastatic disease. Twenty-eight days after ICU admission, 188 patients (69.4%) had died. Nonsurvivors showed a higher rate of advanced cancer, longer hospital stays before ICU admission, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at admission and throughout the ICU stay (P < .001 for all). The multivariate analysis identified metastatic disease (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.43-7.03), respiratory failure (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.15-4.74), elevated lactate levels (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.90-5.36), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 3 or 4 (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.33-5.57) as independent predictors of 28-day mortality. Only 38 patients (14%) were discharged home without medical assistance. INTERPRETATION: The 28-day mortality rate of patients with solid tumors and septic shock was considerably high. Factors associated with worse survival included advanced oncologic disease, poor performance status, high lactate level, and concomitant acute respiratory failure. Early goals-of-care discussions should be considered for frail patients with septic shock and advanced metastatic disease without denying access to the appropriate level of care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hospital readmissions and emergency department re-presentation of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review / Reingreso de pacientes con COVID-19 a salas de hospitalización y servicios de urgencias: una revisión sistemática / Reinternação hospitalar e retorno ao pronto-socorro de pacientes com COVID-19: revisão sistemática

ABSTRACT 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.

RESUMEN Objetivo. Caracterizar la frecuencia, las causas y los factores predictores del reingreso de pacientes con COVID-19 tras haber recibido el alta de un centro de salud o un servicio de urgencias, las intervenciones utilizadas para reducir los reingresos y los resultados de los pacientes con COVID-19 dados de alta de dichos entornos. Métodos. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de estudios de serie de casos y estudios observacionales publicados entre enero del 2020 y abril del 2021 en PubMed, Embase, LILACS y MedRxiv en los cuales se informó sobre la frecuencia, las causas o los factores de riesgo relativos al reingreso de pacientes y sobrevivientes de COVID-19. Se realizó una síntesis narrativa y se evaluó la calidad metodológica utilizando la lista de verificación de evaluación crítica de JBI. Resultados. Se encontraron 44 estudios con datos de 10 países. La tasa media general de reingreso a los 30 días fue de 7,1%. Los reingresos variaron con la duración del seguimiento, y tuvieron lugar en <10,5%, <14,5%, <21,5% y <30%, respectivamente, a los 10, 30, 60 y 253 días después del alta. Entre los que recibieron seguimiento por 30 y 60 días, el tiempo medio entre el alta y la readmisión fue de 3 y de 8 a 11 días, respectivamente. El factor de riesgo significativo asociado al reingreso fue una estancia más corta, y entre las causas importantes se encontraron episodios respiratorios o tromboembólicos y enfermedades crónicas. El reingreso en el servicio de urgencias fue de >20% en cuatro estudios. Los factores de riesgo asociados con la mortalidad fueron sexo masculino, edad avanzada y comorbilidades. Conclusión. El reingreso de sobrevivientes de COVID-19 es frecuente, y la mortalidad después del alta es significativa en grupos poblacionales específicos. Existe una necesidad urgente de seguir examinando las razones subyacentes del reingreso temprano, así como de prevenir reingresos adicionales y resultados adversos en los sobrevivientes de COVID-19.

RESUMO Objetivo. Caracterizar a frequência, as causas e os preditores de reinternação de pacientes com COVID-19 após a alta do estabelecimento de saúde ou do pronto-socorro, intervenções usadas para reduzir reinternações e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 que receberam alta de tais instalações. Métodos. Revisão sistemática de séries de casos e estudos observacionais publicados entre janeiro de 2020 e abril de 2021, indexados nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, LILACS e MedRxiv, que relatassem a frequência, as causas ou os fatores de risco para a reinternação de sobreviventes da COVID-19/pacientes com COVID-19. Realizamos uma síntese narrativa das evidências e avaliamos a qualidade metodológica utilizando a checklist de avaliação crítica do Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Resultados. Foram identificados 44 estudos, incluindo dados de 10 países. O índice médio geral de reinternação em 30 dias foi de 7,1%. A frequência das reinternações variou com o tempo de acompanhamento, com <10,5%, <14,5%, <21,5% e <30%, respectivamente, ocorrendo nos primeiros 10, 30, 60 e 253 dias após a alta. Dentre aqueles seguidos por 30 e 60 dias, o tempo médio da alta até a reinternação foi de 3 dias e 8 a 11 dias, respectivamente. O único fator de risco significativamente associado à reinternação foi ter um tempo de permanência hospitalar mais curto, e as causas importantes incluíram eventos respiratórios ou tromboembólicos e doenças crônicas. Em quatro estudos, >20% dos pacientes retornaram ao pronto-socorro. Os fatores de risco associados à mortalidade foram sexo masculino, idade avançada e comorbidades. Conclusões. A reinternação hospitalar é frequente em sobreviventes da COVID-19 e a mortalidade pós-alta é significativa em populações específicas. Há uma necessidade urgente de examinar melhor as razões que levam à reinternação precoce e de evitar reinternações adicionais e desfechos adversos em sobreviventes da COVID-19.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS: Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION: Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING: None.

Toxicity of Immunotherapeutic Agents.

As the cancer population increases and immunotherapy becomes widely utilized, severe toxicities from these treatments will become more prevalent. In cancer patients, the most common immunotherapies that lead to critical illness are chimeric antigen receptor T cells, monoclonal antibodies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Awareness of their toxicities by the intensive care unit team is of extreme importance. A multidisciplinary approach for diagnosis and treatment is recommended. This article reviews the most common toxicities from immunotherapy and offers a therapy-specific and system-based approach for affected patients.