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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

Prone Positioning for Pregnant Women With Hypoxemia Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted expanded use of prone positioning for refractory hypoxemia. Clinical trials have demonstrated beneficial effects of early prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including decreased mortality. However, pregnant women were excluded from these trials. To address the need for low-cost, low-harm interventions in the face of a widespread viral syndrome wherein hypoxemia predominates, we developed an algorithm for prone positioning of both intubated and nonintubated pregnant women. This algorithm may be appropriate for a wide spectrum of hypoxemia severity among pregnant women. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is responsible for the clinical manifestations of COVID-19. This syndrome can manifest as severe pneumonia complicated by hypoxemia and ARDS. Given the current global COVID-19 pandemic, with a large number of ARDS cases, there is renewed interest in the use of prone positioning to improve oxygenation in moderate or severe hypoxemia. Among the populations who can benefit from prone positioning are pregnant women experiencing severe respiratory distress, as long as the physiologic changes and risks of pregnancy are taken into account.