Pain management during the withholding and withdrawal of life support in critically ill patients at the end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To review and summarize the most frequent medications and dosages used during withholding and withdrawal of life-prolonging measures in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Virtual Health Library from inception through March 2019. We considered any study evaluating pharmaceutical interventions for pain management during the withholding or withdrawing of life support in adult critically ill patients at the end-of-life. Two independent investigators performed the screening and data extraction. We pooled data on utilization rate of analgesic and sedative drugs and summarized the dosing between the moment prior to withholding or withdrawal of life support and the moment before death. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States (38%), Canada (31%), and the Netherlands (31%). Eleven studies were single-cohort and twelve had a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of less than 7. The mean age of the patients ranged from 59 to 71 years, 59-100% were mechanically ventilated, and 47-100% of the patients underwent life support withdrawal. The most commonly used opioid and sedative were morphine [utilization rate 60% (95% CI 48-71%)] and midazolam [utilization rate 28% (95% CI 23-32%)], respectively. Doses increased during the end-of-life process (pooled mean increase in the dose of morphine: 2.6 mg/h, 95% CI 1.2-4). CONCLUSIONS: Pain control is centered on opioids and adjunctive benzodiazepines, with dosages exceeding those recommended by guidelines. Despite consistency among guidelines, there is significant heterogeneity among practices in end-of-life care.

Hemorrhagic Shock Secondary to Aortoesophageal Fistula as a Complication of Esophageal Cancer.

Although aortoesophageal fistulas are rare, they can present as life-threatening emergencies. This condition can develop secondary to an aneurysm, foreign bodies, infiltrating tumors, and radiotherapy. We report a patient with hemorrhagic shock secondary to an aortoesophageal fistula. A 69-year-old male with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus treated with chemoradiation and metallic stent placement was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after an episode of hematemesis. The patient was hemodynamically unstable, requiring fluid resuscitation, blood transfusions, and respiratory and vasopressor support. The patient developed electric pulseless activity, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed for 40 minutes. An upper endoscopy showed the esophageal tumor infiltrating into the stent, and computed tomography (CT) angiogram showed leakage of contrast from the thoracic aorta to the esophagus. The diagnosis of aortoesophageal fistula was made. The patient underwent endovascular management for the fistula. However, his critical condition did not improve, and the patient perished.

Variability in triage practices for critically ill cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Intensive care triage practices and end-user interpretation of triage guidelines have rarely been assessed. We evaluated agreement between providers on the prioritization of patients for ICU admission using different triage guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centered randomized study on providers from 18 different countries was conducted using clinical vignettes of oncological patients. The level of agreement between providers was measured using two different guidelines, with one being cancer specific. RESULTS: Amongst 257 providers, 52.5% randomly received the Society of Critical Care Prioritization Model, and 47.5% received a cancer specific flowchart as a guide. In the Prioritization Model arm the average entropy was 1.193, versus 1.153 in the flowchart arm (P = .095) indicating similarly poor agreement. The Fleiss' kappa coefficients were estimated to be 0.2136 for the SCCMPM arm and 0.2457 for the flowchart arm, also similarly implying poor agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The low agreement amongst practitioners on the prioritization of cancer patient cases for ICU admission existed using both general triage guidelines and guidelines tailored only to cancer patients. The lack of consensus on intensive care unit triage practices in the oncological population exposes a potential barrier to appropriate resource allocation that needs to be addressed.

Out-of-Hospital ICU Transfers to an Oncological Referral Center: Characteristics, Resource Utilization, and Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:: To determine resource utilization and outcomes of out-of-hospital transfer patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a cancer referral center. DESIGN:: Single-center cohort. SETTING:: A tertiary oncological center. PATIENTS:: Patients older than 18 years transferred to our ICU from an outside hospital between January 2013 and December 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: A total of 2127 (90.3%) were emergency department (ED) ICU admissions and 228 (9.7%) out-of-hospital transfers. The ICU length of stay (LOS) was longer in the out-of-hospital transfers when compared to all other ED ICU admissions ( P = .001); however, ICU and hospital mortality were similar between both groups. The majority of patients were transferred for a higher level of care (77.2%); there was no difference in the amount of interventions performed, ICU LOS, and ICU mortality between nonhigher level-of-care and higher level-of-care patients. Factors associated with an ICU LOS ≥10days were a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, weekend admissions, presence of shock, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury on admission or during ICU stay ( P < .008). The ICU mortality of transferred patients was 17.5% and associated risk factors were older age, higher SOFA score on admission, use of mechanical ventilation and vasopressors during ICU stay, and renal failure on admission ( P < .0001). Data related to the transfer such as LOS at the outside facility, time of transfer, delay in transfer, and longer distance traveled were not associated with increased LOS or mortality in our study. CONCLUSION:: Organ failure severity on admission, and not transfer-related factors, continues to be the best predictor of outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer when transferred from other facilities to the ICU. Our data suggest that transferring critically ill patients with cancer to a specialized center does not lead to worse outcomes or increased resource utilization when compared to patients admitted from the ED.

Air embolism after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a patient with budd Chiari syndrome.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is a procedure commonly used for the diagnosis and treatment of various pancreatic and biliary diseases. Air embolism is a rare complication, which may be associated with this procedure. This condition can be manifested as cardiopulmonary instability and/or neurological symptoms. Known risk factors include: sphincterotomy; application of air with high intramural pressure; anatomic abnormalities; and chronic hepatobiliary inflammation. It is important for the health-care staff, including anesthesiologists, interventional gastroenterologists, and critical care specialists, amongst others, to promptly recognize air embolism and to initiate therapy in a timely fashion, thus preventing potentially fatal outcomes. We submit a brief review of the literature and a case report of air embolism which occurred in the immediate postoperative stage of an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, performed in a woman with a history of liver transplantation due to Budd Chiari syndrome and biliary stricture.