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.

Post-cardiac arrest PCI is underutilized among cancer patients: Machine learning augmented nationally representative case-control study of 30 million hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after cardiac arrest, although they demonstrate improved mortality benefit from the procedure. We produced the largest nationally representative analysis of mortality of cardiac arrest and PCI for patients with cancer versus non-cancer. METHODS: Propensity score adjusted multivariable regression for mortality was performed in this case-control study of the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset, the 2016 National Inpatient Sample. Regression models of mortality and PCI weighted by the complex survey design were fully adjusted for age, race, income, cancer metastases, NIS-calculated mortality risk by Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), acute coronary syndrome, and likelihood of undergoing PCI. RESULTS: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized adult patients, 15.43% had cancer, and 0.79% of the whole sample presented with cardiac arrest (of whom 20.57% underwent PCI). In fully adjusted regression analysis among patients with cardiac arrest, PCI significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.15, 95 %CI 0.13-0.19; p < 0.001) among patients with cancer greater than those without it (OR 0.21, 95 %CI 0.20-0.23; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative study suggests that post-cardiac arrest PCI is underutilized among patients with cancer despite its significant mortality reduction for such patients (independent of clinical acuity).

Incidence and severity of acute complications after spinal cord injury.

OBJECT: The aim of this multicenter, prospective study was to determine the spectrum, incidence, and severity of complications during the initial hospitalization of patients with spinal cord injury. METHODS: The study was conducted at 9 university-affiliated hospitals that comprise the clinical centers of the North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) for Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury. The study population comprised 315 patients admitted to NACTN clinical centers between June 25, 2005, and November 2, 2010, who had American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale grades of A-D and were 18 years of age or older. Patients were managed according to a standardized protocol. RESULTS: The study population was 79% male with a median age of 44 years. The leading causes of injury were falls (37%) and motor vehicle accidents (28%). The distribution of initial ASIA grades were A (40%), B (16%), C (15%), and D (29%). Fifty-eight percent of patients sustained 1 or more severe, moderate, or mild complications. Complications were associated with more severe ASIA grade: 84% of patients with Grade A and 25% of patients with Grade D had at least 1 complication. Seventy-eight percent of complications occurred within 14 days of injury. The most frequent types of severe and moderate complications were respiratory failure, pneumonia, pleural effusion, anemia, cardiac dysrhythmia, and severe bradycardia. The mortality rate was 3.5% and was associated with increased age and preexisting morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the type, frequency, time of occurrence, and severity of specific complications that occur after spinal cord injury can aid in their early detection, treatment, and prevention. The data are of importance in evaluating and selecting therapy for clinical trials.

Identification of serum biomarkers in brain-injured adults: potential for predicting elevated intracranial pressure.

Brain injury biomarkers may have clinical utility in stratifying injury severity level, predicting adverse secondary events or outcomes, and monitoring the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. As a biomarker source, serum offers several advantages over cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), including ease of accessibility and reduced risk to the patient. We screened pooled serum samples obtained from 11 severely injured traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] 25 mm Hg). Our results support the use of serum as a source for discovery of TBI biomarkers, and indicate that serum biomarkers may have utility for predicting secondary pathologies (e.g., elevated ICP) associated with TBI.

Therapeutic hypertension: principles and methods.

The aspects of cardiovascular physiology important for the safe and effective implementation and titration of hypertensive therapy among neurosurgical patients with neurological or neurosurgical illness/injury are reviewed. Therapeutic hypertension may be an appropriate treatment for some neurological or neurosurgical conditions, e.g., vasospasm or support of cerebral perfusion pressure. Initiation and maintenance of hypertension should be done safely to avoid complications and/or undesired side effects. Accurate measurement of the arterial and central vascular pressures, the limitations of those methods, and alternative estimates of intravascular volume are reviewed. Hypertensive therapy is accomplished by modifying cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance, the principal physiological determinants of blood pressure. The goals of hypertensive therapy can be achieved by proper evaluation and manipulation of the four components of cardiac output, preload, afterload, heart rate and contractility. Measurement or calculation of estimates of these parameters is important in the selection of proper medications or supplemental fluid administration.

Advanced assessment of hemodynamic parameters during donor care.

Detailed evaluation of cardiovascular function by hemodynamic "profiling" during donor care may be necessary to select appropriate treatment for hypotension. Preload, systemic vascular resistance, heart rate, and contractility are all determinants of cardiac output and blood pressure. This review discusses the measurement, physiological limitations, and pharmacological manipulation of those variables during care of selected donors.

Training for the transport of mechanically ventilated patients.

The transport of critically ill patients is hazardous, yet necessary. In these conditions monitoring may be challenging, and the ability to intervene when problems arise is often limited. Conducting safe transport of these patients has been shown to be possible when experienced personnel apply their knowledge appropriately. It is a complex exercise, however, with significant potential for breakdown. Despite the magnitude of such transports of high-risk patients, no substantive focus on formal training exists. This article proposes that formal training of transport teams be strongly considered at the institutional level, and it introduces the content and method of delivery of this training. Because these are expressed opinions, the concept should be explored and validated by an interventional study, establishing a baseline of transport complications in a given facility, implementing some form of training, and reevaluating the performance of the trained providers in the same institution. A significant reduction in complications would validate the time, effort, and expense of developing such a course and would provide a model for other institutions to follow.

Evaluation of trauma team performance using an advanced human patient simulator for resuscitation training.

BACKGROUND: Human patient simulation (HPS) has been used since 1969 for teaching purposes. Only recently has technology advanced to allow application to the complex field of trauma resuscitation. The purpose of our study was to validate an advanced HPS as an evaluation tool of trauma team resuscitation skills. METHODS: The pilot study evaluated 10 three-person military resuscitation teams from community hospitals that participated in a 28-day rotation at a civilian trauma center. Each team consisted of physicians, nurses, and medics. Using the HPS, teams were evaluated on arrival and again on completion of the rotation. In addition, the 10 trauma teams were compared with 5 expert teams composed of experienced trauma surgeons and nurses. Two standardized trauma scenarios were used, representing a severely injured patient with multiple injuries and with an Injury Severity Score of 41 (probability of survival, 50%). Performance was measured using a unique human performance assessment tool that included five scored and eight timed tasks generally accepted as critical to the initial assessment and treatment of a trauma patient. Scored tasks included airway, breathing, circulation, and disability assessments as well as overall organizational skills and a total score. The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to compare the military teams' scores for scenarios 1 and 2, and the comparison of the military teams' final scores with the expert teams. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The 10 military teams demonstrated significant improvement in four of the five scored (p < or = 0.05) and six of the eight timed (p < or = 0.05) tasks during the final scenario. This improvement reflects the teams' cumulative didactic and clinical experience during the 28-day trauma refresher course as well as some degree of simulator familiarization. Improved final scores reflected efficient and coordinated team efforts. The military teams' initial scores were worse than the expert group in all categories, but their final scores were only lower than the expert groups in 2 of 13 measurements (p < or = 0.05). CONCLUSION: No studies have validated the use of the HPS as an effective teaching or evaluation tool in the complex field of trauma resuscitation. These pilot data demonstrate the ability to evaluate trauma team performance in a reproducible fashion. In addition, we were able to document a significant improvement in team performance after a 28-day trauma refresher course, with scores approaching those of the expert teams.