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.

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.

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.

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.