Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Background: Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days. Methods: The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold crossvalidation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis. Results: About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1-21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4-12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; = 2), O-2 saturation (= 90%), presence of PE-specific symptoms, tumour response (progression, unknown, or not evaluated vs others), and primary tumour resection. Three risk classes were created (low, intermediate, and high risk). The risk of serious complications within 15 days increases according to the group: 1.6, 9.4, 30.6%; P<0.0001. Fifteen-day mortality rates also rise progressively in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients: 0.3, 6.1, and 17.1%; P<0.0001. The cross-validated risk estimate is 0.191 (s.e. = 0.012). The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.779 (95% CI, 0.717-0.840). Conclusions: We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index.

Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days. The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold cross-validation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis. About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1-21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4-12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Background: Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days. Methods: The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold crossvalidation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis. Results: About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1-21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4-12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; = 2), O-2 saturation (= 90%), presence of PE-specific symptoms, tumour response (progression, unknown, or not evaluated vs others), and primary tumour resection. Three risk classes were created (low, intermediate, and high risk). The risk of serious complications within 15 days increases according to the group: 1.6, 9.4, 30.6%; P<0.0001. Fifteen-day mortality rates also rise progressively in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients: 0.3, 6.1, and 17.1%; P<0.0001. The cross-validated risk estimate is 0.191 (s.e. = 0.012). The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.779 (95% CI, 0.717-0.840). Conclusions: We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days. The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold cross-validation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis. About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1-21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4-12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE

Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care patient (The ENPIC study) : Does nutrition really affect ICU mortality?

The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for ≥72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for ≤14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were reported. We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following characteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 ± 3.3 vs 8.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT: 03634943