Classifying sepsis patients in the emergency department using SIRS, qSOFA or MEWS.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of qSOFA and SOFA compared with the MEWS and SIRS criteria on the classification of emergency department (ED) patients with an infection as having sepsis. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre study was performed in a random sample of 600 medical patients who visited the ED of the Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam between 1 November 2015 and 1 November 2016. Data for the different sepsis scores, as well as general data and demographics were retrieved. Descriptive analytics and sensitivity/specificity analysis were used to evaluate the performance of the different sepsis tools. RESULTS: Of 577 evaluable medical patients, 198 patients (34.3%) had a probable infection. The SIRS sepsis criteria, severe sepsis criteria, MEWS ≥ 5 and qSOFA criteria classified 141/198 (71.2%), 55/198 (27.8%), 58/198 (29.3%) and 17/198 patients (8.6%) respectively, as septic. The in-hospital mortality of patients classified as septic by the SIRS and qSOFA score was 6.4% and 29.4%. The qSOFA and SIRS score of ≥ 2 had a specificity of 93.7% (95% CI: 91.3-95.6) and 56.9% (52.7-61.1) in predicting in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: No major differences in gender, age, comorbidity and site of infection between patients with sepsis or severe sepsis classified by the SIRS, qSOFA criteria or MEWS of ≥ 5 were found. The qSOFA criteria classifies a smaller group of patients as septic compared with the SIRS or MEWS. Due to this strict selection, the qSOFA score seems unsuitable as a bedside tool in the work-up and treatment of sepsis at the ED.

Limitations of screening for occult cancer in patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic venous thrombosis (IVT) is associated with occult malignancy in 10% of patients. The Trousseau study investigated whether extensive screening using abdominal and chest computed tomography (CT) scans and mammography in women would decrease mortality, compared with limited screening. Here, the costs and test characteristics of these screening strategies are presented, including true- and false-positive findings, sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: All investigations performed because of a suspicion of malignancy in the limited or extensive screening groups were collected. Costs were calculated using Dutch healthcare tariffs. RESULTS: A total of 342 and 288 patients with IVT were included in the extensive and the limited screening group, respectively. The prevalences of malignancy and mortality were comparable between these two groups, as were the abnormal findings during routine screening. In 30% of the extensively screened patients, the CT scans or mammography showed abnormalities necessitating further diagnostic work-up; this yielded six malignancies and resulted in a positive predictive value of 6.6%, sensitivity of 33% and specificity of 70%. Mean costs per patient were €165.17 for the routine and €530.92 for the extensive screening. CONCLUSION: Screening using CT scans and mammography results in extra costs due to the high percentage of false-positive findings for which a further diagnostic work-up is indicated.

Is extensive screening for cancer in idiopathic venous thromboembolism warranted?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism (IVTE) have an estimated 10% incidence of cancer within 12 months after diagnosis. However, the utility of screening for cancer in this population is controversial. METHODS: In this prospective concurrently controlled cohort study, limited and extensive cancer screening strategies were compared. All 630 patients underwent baseline screening consisting of history, physical examination, basic laboratory tests and chest X-ray. In the extensive screening group abdominal and chest CT scan and mammography were added. Outcomes were incidence and curability of cancer, and cancer-related and overall mortality. RESULTS: In 12 of the 342 (3.5%) patients in the extensive screening group malignancy was diagnosed at baseline compared with 2.4% (seven of 288 patients) in the limited screening group. Extensive screening detected six additional cancers (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.74-4.3), of which three were potentially curable. During a median 2.5 years of follow-up, cancer was diagnosed in 3.7% and 5.0% in the extensive and limited screening groups, respectively. In the extensive screening group 26 patients (7.6%) died compared with 24 (8.3%) in the limited screening group; adjusted hazard ratio 1.22 (95% CI, 0.69-2.22). Of these deaths 17 (5.0%) in the extensive screening group and 8 (2.8%) in the limited screening group were cancer related; adjusted hazard ratio 1.79 (95% CI, 0.74-4.35). CONCLUSIONS: The low yield of extensive screening and lack of survival benefit do not support routine screening for cancer with abdominal and chest CT scan and mammography in patients with a first episode of IVTE.

Cell-derived microvesicles and cancer.

Blood and other body f luids contain cell-derived microvesicles. The presence of microvesicles in cancer patients was already noticed in the late 1970s. Since then, the prothrombotic state in cancer patients has invariably been associated with the presence of such microvesicles. More recently, a growing body of evidence supports an important contribution of microvesicles to cancer cell survival, invasiveness and metastases. Here, we will present an overview of the many contributions of microvesicles to cancer development and progression. In addition, their role in risk stratification and treatment of cancer patients is discussed.

Development in anticoagulant therapy.

Venous thromboembolism is an important clinical problem. Cancer patients have higher risk to develop venous thrombosis and vice versa. The treatment consists of heparin followed by vitamin K antagonists. Both agents have several limitations. Especially in cancer patients, vitamin K antagonists cause bleeding or recurrence of VTE because of a small therapeutic window. Monotherapy with low-molecular weight heparin seems to cause less of these complications in cancer patients compared to vitamin K antagonists. Besides, the drug is thought to have anti-cancer properties. Several novel anticoagulants are being developed and are undergoing clinical evaluation. New anticoagulants should also be evaluated on the effect on progression of cancer and cancer-related survival.

Cancer and thrombosis: from molecular mechanisms to clinical presentations.

Although the bidirectional association between cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been known for almost two centuries, recent advances in our understanding of the clinical, laboratory, and epidemiologic aspects of this association have created a renewed interest in this topic. This review consists of two parts. The first part discusses the occurrence, determinants and significance of VTE in those with cancer, as well as the risk of developing and the possible need to detect cancer in those presenting with VTE. The second part reviews the role of hemostatic constituents (coagulation and fibrinolytic proteins and platelets) in promoting growth and progression of cancer, as well as the effects and possible mechanisms of the low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in this process.

Parenteral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer who have no other indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Basic research and clinical studies have generated the hypothesis that anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumour effect in addition to the antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin (including unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and fondaparinux to improve survival of patients with cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) A January 2007 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) Hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology; (3) Checking of references of included studies; and (4) Use of "related article" feature in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism comparing UFH, LMWH or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo and RCTs comparing two of the three agents of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all cause mortality, venous thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin ( either UFH or LMWH). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable. Overall, heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.91). In subgroup analyses, patients with limited small cell lung cancer experienced a clear survival benefit (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.83). The survival benefit was not statistically significant for either patients with extensive small cell lung cancer (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.06) or patients with advanced cancer (HR = 0.84; 95%: 0.68 to 1.03). The increased risk of bleeding with heparin was not statistically significant (RR = 1.78; 95% CI: 0.73 to 4.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin has a survival benefit in cancer patients in general, and in patients with limited small cell lung cancer in particular. Heparin might be particularly beneficial in cancer patients with limited cancer or a longer life expectancy. Future research should investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants (in different dosing, schedules and duration of therapy) in patients with different types and stages of cancers.