Evaluation of factors associated with survival in allogeneic stem cell-transplanted patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

INTRODUCTION: There are conflicting results concerning the outcome of patients after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) who required treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and prognostic parameters in terms of patient survival after allo-HSCT and admission to the ICU within the first 30 days after transplantation. METHODS: Patients after allo-HSCT, who were ≥18 years and admitted to the ICU after the initiation of conditioning therapy and within the first 30 days after allo-HSCT at the University Hospital of Bonn between January 2017 and April 2021, were analysed retrospectively. Baseline data, laboratory parameters, established scoring systems, vital parameters, and outcome were collected. RESULTS: 44 patients (median age of 63 years) were analysed. The 90-day survival rate was 50% (N = 22) and the 1-year survival rate was 27% (N = 12). The 90-day and 1-year survival rates of patients who required MV were 38% (N = 13) and 18% (N = 6). There was a significant correlation between increased mortality and an APACHE-Score ≥20 (p = 0.03), a SAPS-II-Score ≥60 (p = 0.04) and a SOFA-Score ≥9 (p = 0.03). Invasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.05) and vasopressor support (p = 0.03) showed a negative correlation with the outcome. CONCLUSION: This study found several parameters (APACHE-II-Score, SAPS-II-Score, SOFA-Score, MV and vasopressor support) associated with increased mortality after allo-HSCT and admission to the ICU. The outcome of allo-HSCT patients admitted to the ICU is not as poor as previously reported. Even older patients under long-term ventilation may benefit from intensive care therapy.

People living with HIV, HCV and HIV/HCV coinfection in intensive care in a German tertiary referral center 2014-2019.

PURPOSE: The epidemiology of HIV-infected individuals on the Medical Intensive Care Units (MICU) has changed after profound progress in treatment of AIDS-defining illnesses and anti-retroviral therapy (ART). Changes of MICU utilization of Hepatitis C (HCV) patients following roll-out of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) are yet to evaluate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on all patients with HIV, HIV/HCV and HCV admitted to the MICU of University Hospital Bonn 2014-2019. We assessed sociodemographic data, available clinical data from HIV patients (CDC stage, CD4 + lymphocyte cell count, HIV-1-RNA, ART) and HCV patients (HCV-RNA, stage of liver cirrhosis, treatment history) and outcome. RESULTS: 237 patients (46 HIV, 22 HIV/HCV, 169 HCV; 168 male, median age 51.3 years) with 325 MICU admissions were included. Admission criteria for HIV patients were infections (39.7% AIDS-associated, 23.8% with controlled HIV-infection) and cardiopulmonary diseases (14.3%). HIV/HCV coinfected patients had infections in controlled/uncontrolled HIV-infection (46.4%), cardiopulmonary diseases and intoxication/drug abuse (17.9% each). Reasons for HCV-mono-infected patients were infections (24.4%), sequelae of liver disease (20.9%), intoxication/drug abuse (18.4%) and cardiopulmonary diseases (15%). 60 patients deceased; most important risk factor was need for mechanical ventilation. The number of HCV-patients admitted to MICU with chronic active disease and sequelae of liver disease decreased while the proportion of patients with completed DAA-treatment increased. CONCLUSION: Infections remain the most important reason for MICU admission in patients with HIV and/or HCV infection while non-AIDS related conditions increased. DAA roll-out has a beneficial effect on liver-associated morbidity in HCV patients admitted to MICU.

Higher number of multidisciplinary tumor board meetings per case leads to improved clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: This analysis aims at evaluating the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on clinical outcome of multiple tumor entities, the effect of the specific number of multidisciplinary tumor boards and potential differences between the tumor entities. METHODS: By a matched-pair analysis we compared the response to treatment, overall survival, relapse or disease free survival and progression free survival of patients whose cases were discussed in a tumor board meeting with patients whose cases were not. It was performed with patients registered in the cancer registry of the University of Bonn and diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. After the matching process with a pool of 7262 patients a total of 454 patients with 66 different tumor types were included in this study. RESULTS: First, patients with three or more multidisciplinary tumor board meetings in their history show a significantly better overall survival than patients with no tumor board meeting. Second, response to treatment, relapse free survival and time to progression were not found to be significantly different. Third, there was no significant difference for a specific tumor entity. CONCLUSION: This study revealed a positive impact of a higher number of multidisciplinary tumor boards on the clinical outcome. Also, our analysis hints towards a positive effect of multidisciplinary tumor boards on overall survival.