ICU-acquired pneumonia in immunosuppressed patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A post-hoc analysis of a prospective international cohort study

Objective: Intensive Care Units (ICU) acquired Pneumonia (ICU-AP) is one of the most frequent nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Our aim was to determine the effects of having an ICU-AP in immunosuppressed patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design: Post-hoc analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study in 16 countries. Settings: ICU. Patients: Immunosuppressed patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Intervention: None. Measurements and main results: The original cohort had 1611 and in this post-hoc analysis a total of 1512 patients with available data on hospital mortality and occurrence of ICU-AP were included. ICU-AP occurred in 158 patients (10.4%). Hospital mortality was higher in patients with ICU-AP (14.8% vs. 7.1% p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders and centre effect, use of vasopressors (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.22; 95%CI 1.46-.39) and invasive me-chanical ventilation at day 1 (OR 2.12 vs. high flow oxygen; 95%CI 1.07-4.20) were associated with increased risk of ICU-AP while female gender (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.43-94) and chronic kidney disease (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.22-0.88) were associated with decreased risk of ICU-AP. After adjustment for confounders and centre effect, ICU-AP was independently associated with mortality (Hazard Ratio 1.48; 95%CI 14.-1.91; P = 0.003). Conclusions: The attributable mortality of ICU-AP has been repetitively questioned in immunosuppressed pa-tients with acute respiratory failure. This manuscript found that ICU-AP represents an independent risk factor for hospital mortality.(c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Influenza and associated co-infections in critically ill immunosuppressed patients

Background: It is unclear whether influenza infection and associated co-infection are associated with patient-important outcomes in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. Methods: Preplanned secondary analysis of EFRAIM, a prospective cohort study of 68 hospitals in 16 countries. We included 1611 patients aged 18 years or older with non-AIDS-related immunocompromise, who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main exposure of interest was influenza infection status. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes ICU length of stay (LOS) and 90-day mortality. Results: Influenza infection status was categorized into four groups: patients with influenza alone (n = 95, 5.8%), patients with influenza plus pulmonary co-infection (n = 58, 3.6%), patients with non-influenza pulmonary infection (n = 820, 50.9%), and patients without pulmonary infection (n = 638, 39.6%). Influenza infection status was associated with a requirement for intubation and with LOS in ICU (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with influenza plus co-infection had the highest rates of intubation and longest ICU LOS. On crude analysis, influenza infection status was associated with ICU mortality (P &lt; 0.001) but not hospital mortality (P = 0.09). Patients with influenza plus co-infection and patients with non-influenza infection alone had similar ICU mortality (41% and 37% respectively) that was higher than patients with influenza alone or those without infection (33% and 26% respectively). A propensity score-matched analysis did not show a difference in hospital mortality attributable to influenza infection (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.90-1.13, P = 0.85). Age, severity scores, ARDS, and performance status were all associated with ICU, hospital, and 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Category of infectious etiology of respiratory failure (influenza, non-influenza, influenza plus co-infection, and non-infectious) was associated with ICU but not hospital mortality. In a propensity score-matched analysis, influenza infection was not associated with the primary outcome of hospital mortality. Overall, influenza infection alone may not be an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in immunosuppressed patients

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when &gt; 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or &gt; 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ) test (p &lt; 0·05 was considered as unstable). Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569

CCC meets ICU: Redefining the role of critical care of cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently the majority of cancer patients are considered ineligible for intensive care treatment and oncologists are struggling to get their patients admitted to intensive care units. Critical care and oncology are frequently two separate worlds that communicate rarely and thus do not share novel developments in their fields. However, cancer medicine is rapidly improving and cancer is eventually becoming a chronic disease. Oncology is therefore characterized by a growing number of older and medically unfit patients that receive numerous novel drug classes with unexpected side effects.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>All of these changes will generate more medically challenging patients in acute distress that need to be considered for intensive care. An intense exchange between intensivists, oncologists, psychologists and palliative care specialists is warranted to communicate the developments in each field in order to improve triage and patient treatment. Here, we argue that "critical care of cancer patients" needs to be recognized as a medical subspecialty and that there is an urgent need to develop it systematically.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As prognosis of cancer improves, novel therapeutic concepts are being introduced and more and more older cancer patients receive full treatment the number of acutely ill patients is growing significantly. This development a major challenge to current concepts of intensive care and it needs to be redefined who of these patients should be treated, for how long and how intensively.</p

Intensive care of the cancer patient: recent achievements and remaining challenges

A few decades have passed since intensive care unit (ICU) beds have been available for critically ill patients with cancer. Although the initial reports showed dismal prognosis, recent data suggest that an increased number of patients with solid and hematological malignancies benefit from intensive care support, with dramatically decreased mortality rates. Advances in the management of the underlying malignancies and support of organ dysfunctions have led to survival gains in patients with life-threatening complications from the malignancy itself, as well as infectious and toxic adverse effects related to the oncological treatments. In this review, we will appraise the prognostic factors and discuss the overall perspective related to the management of critically ill patients with cancer. The prognostic significance of certain factors has changed over time. For example, neutropenia or autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) have less adverse prognostic implications than two decades ago. Similarly, because hematologists and oncologists select patients for ICU admission based on the characteristics of the malignancy, the underlying malignancy rarely influences short-term survival after ICU admission. Since the recent data do not clearly support the benefit of ICU support to unselected critically ill allogeneic BMT recipients, more outcome research is needed in this subgroup. Because of the overall increased survival that has been reported in critically ill patients with cancer, we outline an easy-to-use and evidence-based ICU admission triage criteria that may help avoid depriving life support to patients with cancer who can benefit. Lastly, we propose a research agenda to address unanswered questions