No abstract

ObjectivesThis study aims to examine the outcome of haematological and patients with solid cancer presenting with sepsis to the emergency department (ED).DesignSingle-centred, retrospective cohort study. Setting conducted at an academic emergency department of a tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAll patients >18 years of age admitted with sepsis were included.InterventionsPatients were stratified into two groups: haematological and solid malignancy.Primary and secondary outcomeThe primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU and hospital lengths of stay and mechanical ventilation duration.Results442 sepsis cancer patients were included in the study, of which 305 patients (69%) had solid tumours and 137 patients (31%) had a haematological malignancy. The mean age at presentation was 67.92 (±13.32) and 55.37 (±20.85) (p<0.001) for solid and liquid tumours, respectively. Among patients with solid malignancies, lung cancer was the most common source (15.6%). As for the laboratory workup, septic solid cancer patients were found to have a higher white blood count (12 576.90 vs 9137.23; p=0.026). During their hospital stay, a total of 158 (51.8%) patients with a solid malignancy died compared with 57 (41.6%) patients with a haematological malignancy (p=0.047). There was no statistically significant association between cancer type and hospital mortality (OR 1.15 for liquid cancer p 0.58). There was also no statistically significant difference regarding intravenous fluid administration, vasopressor use, steroid use or intubation.ConclusionSolid tumour patients with sepsis or septic shock are at the same risk of mortality as patients with haematological tumours. However, haematological malignancy patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock have higher rates of bacteraemia.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) have been linked to inflammation and fibrosis. However, it is still unknown which inflammatory cytokines contribute to the pathogenesis of AF. Furthermore, cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) risk factors such as obesity, hypertension, insulin resistance/glucose intolerance are also associated with inflammation and increased level of cytokines and adipokines. We hypothesized that the inflammatory immune response is exacerbated in patients with both AF and CMS compared to either AF or CMS alone. We investigated inflammatory cytokines and fibrotic markers as well as cytokine genetic profiles in patients with lone AF and CMS. CMS, lone AF patients, patients with both lone AF and CMS, and control patients were recruited. Genetic polymorphisms in inflammatory and fibrotic markers were assessed. Serum levels of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) were tested along with other inflammatory markers including platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-to-HDL ratio (MHR) in three groups of AF+CMS, AF, and CMS patients. There was a trend in the CTGF levels for statistical significance between the AF and AF+CMS group (P = 0.084). Genotyping showed high percentages of patients in all groups with high secretor genotypes of Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (P = 0.037). Genotyping of IFN-γ and IL-10 at high level showed an increase in expression in the AF + CMS group compared to AF and CMS alone suggesting an imbalance between the inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines which is exacerbated by AF. Serum cytokine inflammatory cytokine levels showed that IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IL-17F, and IL-22 were significant between the AF, AF+CMS, and CMS patients. Combination of both CMS and AF may be associated with a higher degree of inflammation than what is seen in either CMS or AF alone. Thus, the identification of a biomarker capable of identifying metabolic syndrome associated with disease will help in identification of a therapeutic target in treating this devastating disease.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may be at a higher risk of mortality from sepsis than patients without heart failure.Objective: The aim of this study is to compare sepsis-related morbidity and mortality between patients with HFpEF and patients without heart failure presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary medical center.

No abstract