Effect of a delayed admission to the intensive care unit on survival after emergency department visit in patients with cancer: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Delayed admission to the ICU is reported to be associated with worse outcomes in cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to compare the 180-day survival of cancer patients whether they were directly admitted to the ICU from the emergency department (ED) or secondarily from the wards after the ED visit. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective observational study including all adult cancer patients that visited the ED in 2018 and that were admitted to the ICU at some point within 7 days from the ED visit. EXPOSURE: Delayed ICU admission. OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Survival at day 180 was plotted using Kaplan-Meier curves, and hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional-hazard models was used to quantify the association between admission modality (directly from the ED or later from wards) and survival at day 180, after adjustment to baseline characteristics. RESULTS: During the study period, 4560 patients were admitted to the hospital following an ED visit, among whom 136 (3%) patients had cancer and were admitted to the ICU, either directly from the ED in 101 (74%) cases or secondarily from the wards in 35 (26%) cases. Patients admitted to the ICU from the ED had a better 180-day survival than those admitted secondarily from wards (log-rank P = 0.006). After adjustment to disease status (remission or uncontrolled malignancy), survival at day 180 was significantly improved in the case of admission to the ICU directly from the ED with an adjusted HR of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.95), P = 0.03. CONCLUSION: In ED patients with cancer, a direct admission to the ICU was associated with better 180-day survival compared with patients with a delayed ICU admission secondary from the wards. However, several confounders were not taken into account, which limits the validity of this result.

Immune checkpoint blockade toxicity among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to estimate the prevalence of patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) who are undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy; report their chief complaints; describe and estimate the prevalence of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). METHODS: Four abstractors reviewed the medical records of patients with cancer treated with ICB who presented to an ED in Paris, France between January 2012 and June 2017. Chief complaints, underlying malignancy and ICB characteristics, and the final diagnoses according to the emergency physician were recorded. Abstractors noted if an emergency physician identified that a patient was receiving an ICB and if the emergency physician considered the possibility of an IRAE. The gold standard as to whether an IRAE was the cause was the patients' referring oncologist's opinion that the ED symptoms were attributed to ICB and IRAE according to post-ED medical records. Descriptive statistics were reported. RESULTS: Among the 409 patients treated with ICB at our institution, 139 presented to the ED. Chief complaints were fatigue (25.2%), fever (23%), vomiting (13.7%), diarrhoea (13.7%), dyspnoea (12.2%), abdominal pain (11.5%), confusion (8.6%) and headache (7.9%). Symptoms were due to IRAEs in 20 (14.4%) cases. The most frequent IRAEs were colitis (40%), endocrine toxicity (30%), hepatitis (25%) and pulmonary toxicity (5%). Patients with IRAEs compared with those without them more frequently had melanoma; had received more distinct courses of ICB treatment, an increased number of ICB medications and ICB cycles; and had a shorter time course since the last infusion of ICB. Emergency physicians considered the possibility of an IRAE in 24 (17.3%) of cases and diagnosed IRAE in 10 (50%) of those with later confirmed IRAE. IRAE was more likely to be missed when the referring oncologist was not contacted or when the patient had respiratory symptoms, fatigue or fever. CONCLUSIONS: ICB exposes patients to potentially severe IRAEs. Emergency physicians must identify patients treated with ICB and consider their toxicity when patients present to the ED with symptoms compatible with IRAEs.

Central venous oxygen saturation is not predictive of early complications in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) is easily observable in oncology patients with long-term central venous catheters (CVC), and has been studied as a prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. We sought to investigate the association between ScvO2 and early complications in cancer patients presenting to the ED. We prospectively enrolled adult cancer patients with pre-existing CVC who presented to the ED. ScvO2 was measured on their CVC. The outcome was admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality by day 7. ScvO2 was first studied as a continuous variable (%) with a ROC analysis and as a categorical variable (cut-off at < 70%) with a multivariate analysis. A total of 210 cancer patients were enrolled. At baseline, ScvO2 showed no significant difference between patients who were admitted to the ICU or died before day 7, and patients who did not (67%; IQR 62-68% vs. 71%; IQR 65-78% respectively, P = 0.3). The ROC analysis showed the absence of discrimination accuracy for ScvO2 to predict the outcome (AUC = 0.56). By multivariate analysis, ScvO2 < 70% was not associated with the outcome (OR 1.67; 95% CI 0.64-4.36). Variables that were associated with ICU admission or death by day 7 included a shock-index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) > 1 and a performance status > 2 (OR 4.76; 95% CI 1.81-12.52 and OR 6.23, 95% CI 2.40-16.17, respectively). This study does not support the use of ScvO2 to risk stratify cancer patients presenting to the ED.

Monitoring Personalized Learning Curves for Emergency Ultrasound With Risk-adjusted Learning-curve Cumulative Summation Method.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) has been a regular practice in emergency departments for several decades. Thus, train our students to US is of prime interest. Because US image acquisition ability can be very different from a patient to another (depending on image quality), it seems relevant to adapt US learning curves (LCs) to patient image quality using tools based on cumulative summation (CUSUM) as the risk-adjusted LC CUSUM (RLC). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to monitor LC of medical students for the acquisition of abdominal emergency US views and to adapt these curves to patient image quality using RLC. METHODS: We asked medical students to perform abdominal US examinations with the acquisition of 11 views of interest on emergency patients after a learning session. Emergency physicians reviewed the student examinations for validation. LCs were plotted and the student was said proficient for a specific view if his LC reached a predetermined limit fixed by simulation. RESULTS: Seven students with no previous experience in US were enrolled. They performed 19 to 50 examinations of 11 views each. They achieve proficiency for a median of 9 (6-10) views. Aorta and right pleura views were validated by seven students; inferior vena cava, right kidney, and bladder by six; gallbladder and left kidney by five; portal veins and portal hilum by four; and subxyphoid and left pleura by three. The number of US examinations required to reach proficiency ranged from five to 41 depending on the student and on the type of view. LC showed that students reached proficiency with different learning speeds. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that, when monitoring LCs for abdominal emergency US, there is some heterogeneity in the learning process depending on the student skills and the type of view. Therefore, rules based on a predetermined number of examinations to reach proficiency are not satisfactory.