Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p<0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p<0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with Cancer-Related Complications

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>Cancer patients are at risk for severe complications related to the underlying malignancy or its treatment and, therefore, usually require admission to intensive care units (ICU). Here, we evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes in this subgroup of patients.</p><p>Materials and Methods</p><p>Secondary analysis of two prospective cohorts of cancer patients admitted to ICUs. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality.</p><p>Results</p><p>Out of 2,028 patients, 456 (23%) had cancer-related complications. Compared to those without cancer-related complications, they more frequently had worse performance status (PS) (57% vs 36% with PS≥2), active malignancy (95% vs 58%), need for vasopressors (45% vs 34%), mechanical ventilation (70% vs 51%) and dialysis (12% vs 8%) (<i>P</i><0.001 for all analyses). ICU (47% vs. 27%) and hospital (63% vs. 38%) mortality rates were also higher in patients with cancer-related complications (<i>P</i><0.001). Chemo/radiation therapy-induced toxicity (6%), venous thromboembolism (5%), respiratory failure (4%), gastrointestinal involvement (3%) and vena cava syndrome (VCS) (2%) were the most frequent cancer-related complications. In multivariable analysis, the presence of cancer-related complications per se was not associated with mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.66), <i>P</i> = 0.131]. However, among the individual cancer-related complications, VCS [OR = 3.79 (1.11–12.92), <i>P</i> = 0.033], gastrointestinal involvement [OR = 3.05 (1.57–5.91), <i>P</i> = <0.001] and respiratory failure [OR = 1.96(1.04–3.71), <i>P</i> = 0.038] were independently associated with in-hospital mortality.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The prognostic impact of cancer-related complications was variable. Although some complications were associated with worse outcomes, the presence of an acute cancer-related complication <i>per se</i> should not guide decisions to admit a patient to ICU.</p></div

Boletín del Observatorio Central Meteorológico: Año XXVIII Número 118 - 1920 Abril 27

Objetivos: Pacientes com câncer criticamente enfermos têm maior risco de lesão renal aguda, mas estudos envolvendo estes pacientes são escassos, e todos em centros únicos e realizados em unidades de terapia intensiva especializadas. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as características e desfechos em uma coorte prospectiva de pacientes de câncer internados em diversas unidades de terapia intensiva com lesão renal aguda. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo multicêntrico de coorte realizado em unidades de terapia intensiva de 28 hospitais brasileiros em um período de dois meses. Foram utilizadas regressões logísticas univariada e multivariada para identificar os fatores associados a mortalidade hospitalar. Resultados: Dentre todas as 717 internações a unidades de terapia intensiva, 87 (12%) tiveram lesão renal aguda e 36% deles receberam terapia de substituição renal. A lesão renal se desenvolveu mais frequentemente em pacientes com neoplasias hematológicas do que em pacientes com tumores sólidos (26% x 11%; p=0,003). Isquemia/choque (76%) e sepse (67%) foram os principais fatores associados à lesão renal, e esta foi multifatorial em 79% dos pacientes. A letalidade hospitalar foi de 71%. Os escores de gravidade gerais e específicos para pacientes com lesão renal, foram imprecisos para predizer o prognóstico nestes pacientes. Na análise multivariada, a duração da internação hospitalar antes da unidade de terapia intensiva, disfunções orgânicas agudas, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e um performance status comprometido associaram-se à maior letalidade. Mais ainda, características relacionadas ao câncer não se associaram com os desfechos. Conclusões: O presente estudo demonstra que internação na unidade de terapia intensiva e suporte avançado à vida devem ser considerados em pacientes selecionados de câncer criticamente enfermos com lesão renal.Objectives: Critically ill cancer patients are at increased risk for acute kidney injury, but studies on these patients are scarce and were all single centered conducted in specialized intensive care units. The objective was to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes in a prospective cohort of cancer patients admitted to several intensive care units with acute kidney injury. Methods: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in intensive care units from 28 hospitals in Brazil over a two-month period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with hospital mortality. Results: Out of all 717 intensive care unit admissions, 87 (12%) had acute kidney injury and 36% of them received renal replacement therapy. Kidney injury developed more frequently in patients with hematological malignancies than in patients with solid tumors (26% vs. 11%, P=0.003). Ischemia/shock (76%) and sepsis (67%) were the main contributing factor for and kidney injury was multifactorial in 79% of the patients. Hospital mortality was 71%. General and renal-specific severity- of-illness scores were inaccurate in predicting outcomes for these patients. In a multivariate analysis, length of hospital stay prior to intensive care unit, acute organ dysfunctions, need for mechanical ventilation and a poor performance status were associated with increased mortality. Moreover, cancer-related characteristics were not associated with outcomes. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that intensive care units admission and advanced life-support should be considered in selected critically ill cancer patients with kidney injury