Influenza and associated co-infections in critically ill immunosuppressed patients.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether influenza infection and associated co-infection are associated with patient-important outcomes in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: Preplanned secondary analysis of EFRAIM, a prospective cohort study of 68 hospitals in 16 countries. We included 1611 patients aged 18 years or older with non-AIDS-related immunocompromise, who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main exposure of interest was influenza infection status. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes ICU length of stay (LOS) and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Influenza infection status was categorized into four groups: patients with influenza alone (n = 95, 5.8%), patients with influenza plus pulmonary co-infection (n = 58, 3.6%), patients with non-influenza pulmonary infection (n = 820, 50.9%), and patients without pulmonary infection (n = 638, 39.6%). Influenza infection status was associated with a requirement for intubation and with LOS in ICU (P < 0.001). Patients with influenza plus co-infection had the highest rates of intubation and longest ICU LOS. On crude analysis, influenza infection status was associated with ICU mortality (P < 0.001) but not hospital mortality (P = 0.09). Patients with influenza plus co-infection and patients with non-influenza infection alone had similar ICU mortality (41% and 37% respectively) that was higher than patients with influenza alone or those without infection (33% and 26% respectively). A propensity score-matched analysis did not show a difference in hospital mortality attributable to influenza infection (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.90-1.13, P = 0.85). Age, severity scores, ARDS, and performance status were all associated with ICU, hospital, and 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Category of infectious etiology of respiratory failure (influenza, non-influenza, influenza plus co-infection, and non-infectious) was associated with ICU but not hospital mortality. In a propensity score-matched analysis, influenza infection was not associated with the primary outcome of hospital mortality. Overall, influenza infection alone may not be an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in immunosuppressed patients.

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), initial management aims primarily to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: To assess the impact of initial management on IMV and mortality rates, we performed a multinational observational prospective cohort study in 16 countries (68 centers). RESULTS: A total of 1611 patients were enrolled (hematological malignancies 51.9%, solid tumors 35.2%, systemic diseases 17.3%, and solid organ transplantation 8.8%). The main ARF etiologies were bacterial (29.5%), viral (15.4%), and fungal infections (14.7%), or undetermined (13.2%). On admission, 915 (56.8%) patients were not intubated. They received standard oxygen (N = 496, 53.9%), high-flow oxygen (HFNC, N = 187, 20.3%), noninvasive ventilation (NIV, N = 153, 17.2%), and NIV + HFNC (N = 79, 8.6%). Factors associated with IMV included age (hazard ratio = 0.92/year, 95% CI 0.86-0.99), day-1 SOFA (1.09/point, 1.06-1.13), day-1 PaO2/FiO2 (1.47, 1.05-2.07), ARF etiology (Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (2.11, 1.42-3.14), invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (1.85, 1.21-2.85), and undetermined cause (1.46, 1.09-1.98). After propensity score matching, HFNC, but not NIV, had an effect on IMV rate (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-1.00, p = 0.05). ICU, hospital, and day-90 mortality rates were 32.4, 44.1, and 56.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with hospital mortality included age (odds ratio = 1.18/year, 1.09-1.27), direct admission to the ICU (0.69, 0.54-0.87), day-1 SOFA excluding respiratory score (1.12/point, 1.08-1.16), PaO2/FiO2 < 100 (1.60, 1.03-2.48), and undetermined ARF etiology (1.43, 1.04-1.97). Initial oxygenation strategy did not affect mortality; however, IMV was associated with mortality, the odds ratio depending on IMV conditions: NIV + HFNC failure (2.31, 1.09-4.91), first-line IMV (2.55, 1.94-3.29), NIV failure (3.65, 2.05-6.53), standard oxygen failure (4.16, 2.91-5.93), and HFNC failure (5.54, 3.27-9.38). CONCLUSION: HFNC has an effect on intubation but not on mortality rates. Failure to identify ARF etiology is associated with higher rates of both intubation and mortality. This suggests that in addition to selecting the appropriate oxygenation device, clinicians should strive to identify the etiology of ARF.

Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer-Related Complications.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients are at risk for severe complications related to the underlying malignancy or its treatment and, therefore, usually require admission to intensive care units (ICU). Here, we evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes in this subgroup of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of two prospective cohorts of cancer patients admitted to ICUs. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Out of 2,028 patients, 456 (23%) had cancer-related complications. Compared to those without cancer-related complications, they more frequently had worse performance status (PS) (57% vs 36% with PS≥2), active malignancy (95% vs 58%), need for vasopressors (45% vs 34%), mechanical ventilation (70% vs 51%) and dialysis (12% vs 8%) (P<0.001 for all analyses). ICU (47% vs. 27%) and hospital (63% vs. 38%) mortality rates were also higher in patients with cancer-related complications (P<0.001). Chemo/radiation therapy-induced toxicity (6%), venous thromboembolism (5%), respiratory failure (4%), gastrointestinal involvement (3%) and vena cava syndrome (VCS) (2%) were the most frequent cancer-related complications. In multivariable analysis, the presence of cancer-related complications per se was not associated with mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.66), P = 0.131]. However, among the individual cancer-related complications, VCS [OR = 3.79 (1.11-12.92), P = 0.033], gastrointestinal involvement [OR = 3.05 (1.57-5.91), P = <0.001] and respiratory failure [OR = 1.96(1.04-3.71), P = 0.038] were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic impact of cancer-related complications was variable. Although some complications were associated with worse outcomes, the presence of an acute cancer-related complication per se should not guide decisions to admit a patient to ICU.

Effects of Organizational Characteristics on Outcomes and Resource Use in Patients With Cancer Admitted to Intensive Care Units.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of organizational characteristics and processes of care on hospital mortality and resource use in patients with cancer admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 9,946 patients with cancer (solid, n = 8,956; hematologic, n = 990) admitted to 70 ICUs (51 located in general hospitals and 19 in cancer centers) during 2013. We retrieved patients' clinical and outcome data from an electronic ICU quality registry. We surveyed ICUs regarding structure, organization, staffing patterns, and processes of care. We used mixed multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify characteristics associated with hospital mortality and efficient resource use in the ICU. RESULTS: Median number of patients with cancer per center was 110 (interquartile range, 58 to 154), corresponding to 17.9% of all ICU admissions. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 15.9% and 25.4%, respectively. After adjusting for relevant patient characteristics, presence of clinical pharmacists in the ICU (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90), number of protocols (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98), and daily meetings between oncologists and intensivists for care planning (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.91) were associated with lower mortality. Implementation of protocols (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.07) and meetings between oncologists and intensivists (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.15 to 19.22) were also independently associated with more efficient resource use. Neither admission to ICUs in cancer centers compared with general hospitals nor annual case volume had an impact on mortality or resource use. CONCLUSION: Organizational aspects, namely the implementation of protocols and presence of clinical pharmacists in the ICU, and close collaboration between oncologists and ICU teams are targets to improve mortality and resource use in critically ill patients with cancer.

Sepsis-Associated Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with Malignancies.

RATIONALE: Sepsis is a major cause of mortality among critically ill patients with cancer. Information about clinical outcomes and factors associated with increased risk of death in these patients is necessary to help physicians recognize those patients who are most likely to benefit from ICU therapy and identify possible targets for intervention. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated cancer patients with sepsis chosen from a multicenter prospective study to characterize their clinical characteristics and to identify independent risk factors associated with hospital mortality. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) to evaluate adult cancer patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We used logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 717 patients admitted to the participating ICUs, 268 (37%) had severe sepsis (n = 142, 53%) or septic shock (n = 126, 47%). These patients comprised the population of the present study. The mean score on the third version of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score was 62.9 ± 17.7 points, and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (7-12) points. The most frequent sites of infection were the lungs (48%), intraabdominal region (25%), bloodstream as primary infection (19%), and urinary tract (17%). Half of the patients had microbiologically proven infections, and Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens causing sepsis (31%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 42% and 56%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the number of acute organ dysfunctions (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.87), hematological malignancies (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.05-6.27), performance status 2-4 (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.44-4.43), and polymicrobial infections (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.52-9.21) were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is a common cause of critical illness in patients with cancer and remains associated with high mortality. Variables related to underlying malignancy, sepsis severity, and characteristics of infection are associated with a grim prognosis.

Outcomes for patients with cancer admitted to the ICU requiring ventilatory support: results from a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring nonpalliative ventilatory support. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian ICUs evaluating adult patients with cancer requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during the first 48 h of their ICU stay. We used logistic regression to identify the variables associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 717 patients, 263 (37%) (solid tumors = 227; hematologic malignancies = 36) received ventilatory support. NIV was initially used in 85 patients (32%), and 178 (68%) received MV. Additionally, NIV followed by MV occurred in 45 patients (53%). Hospital mortality rates were 67% in all patients, 40% in patients receiving NIV only, 69% when NIV was followed by MV, and 73% in patients receiving MV only (P < .001). Adjusting for the type of admission, newly diagnosed malignancy (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.28-10.10), recurrent or progressive malignancy (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.25-10.81), tumoral airway involvement (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.30-12.56), performance status (PS) 2 to 4 (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.59), NIV followed by MV (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.09-8.18), MV as initial ventilatory strategy (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.45-8.60), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (each point except the respiratory domain) (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29) were associated with hospital mortality. Hospital survival in patients with good PS and nonprogressive malignancy and without tumoral airway involvement was 53%. Conversely, patients with poor functional capacity and cancer progression had unfavorable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer with good PS and nonprogressive disease requiring ventilatory support should receive full intensive care, because one-half of these patients survive. On the other hand, provision of palliative care should be considered the main goal for patients with poor PS and progressive underlying malignancy.

Clinical outcomes of patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary information on mechanical ventilation (MV) use in emerging countries is limited. Moreover, most epidemiological studies on ventilatory support were carried out before significant developments, such as lung protective ventilation or broader application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for hospital mortality and failure of NIV in patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective, cohort study, a total of 773 adult patients admitted to 45 ICUs over a two-month period requiring invasive ventilation or NIV for more than 24 hours were evaluated. Causes of ventilatory support, prior chronic health status and physiological data were assessed. Multivariate analysis was used to identifiy variables associated with hospital mortality and NIV failure. RESULTS: Invasive MV and NIV were used as initial ventilatory support in 622 (80%) and 151 (20%) patients. Failure with subsequent intubation occurred in 54% of NIV patients. The main reasons for ventilatory support were pneumonia (27%), neurologic disorders (19%) and non-pulmonary sepsis (12%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 34% and 42%. Using the Berlin definition, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was diagnosed in 31% of the patients with a hospital mortality of 52%. In the multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 1.03), comorbidities (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.17), associated organ failures (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.20), moderate (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.35) to severe ARDS (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.41), cumulative fluid balance over the first 72 h of ICU (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.39 to 4.28), higher lactate (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.50), invasive MV (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.32 to 5.39) and NIV failure (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.74 to 8.99) were independently associated with hospital mortality. The predictors of NIV failure were the severity of associated organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.34), ARDS (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.82) and positive fluid balance (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.30). CONCLUSIONS: Current mortality of ventilated patients in Brazil is elevated. Implementation of judicious fluid therapy and a watchful use and monitoring of NIV patients are potential targets to improve outcomes in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01268410.