ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE IV) in patients with cancer admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) in a single medical center in China.Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study including nine hundred and eighty one consecutive patients over a 2-year period.ResultsThe hospital mortality rate was 4.5%. When all 981 patients were evaluated, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC, 95% Confidential Intervals) of the three models in predicting hospital mortality were 0.948 (0.914–0.982), 0.863 (0.804–0.923), and 0.873 (0.813–0.934) for SAPS 3, APACHE II and APACHE IV respectively. The p values of Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics for the models were 0.759, 0.900 and 0.878 for SAPS 3, APACHE II and APACHE IV respectively. However, SAPS 3 and APACHE IV underestimated the in-hospital mortality with standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.5 and 1.17 respectively, while APACHE II overestimated the in-hospital mortality with SMR of 0.72. Further analysis showed that discrimination power was better with SAPS 3 than with APACHE II and APACHE IV whether for emergency surgical and medical patients (AUROC of 0.912 vs 0.866 and 0.857) or for scheduled surgical patients (AUROC of 0.945 vs 0.834 and 0.851). Calibration was good for all models (all p > 0.05) whether for scheduled surgical patients or emergency surgical and medical patients. However, in terms of SMR, SAPS 3 was both accurate in predicting the in-hospital mortality for emergency surgical and medical patients and for scheduled surgical patients, while APACHE IV and APACHE II were not.ConclusionIn this cohort, we found that APACHE II, APACHE IV and SAPS 3 models had good discrimination and calibration ability in predicting in-hospital mortality of critically ill patients with cancer in need of intensive care. Of these three severity scores, SAPS 3 was superior to APACHE II and APACHE IV, whether in terms of discrimination and calibration power, or standardized mortality ratios.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a very important method for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer, which carries a high rate of morbidity and mortality. This study was undertaken to assess the predictive score proposed by Ferguson et al for pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for patients with cancer. METHODS:The data of patients who admitted to the intensive care unit after transthoracic esophagectomy at Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College between September 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:Two hundred and seventeen patients were analyzed and 129 (59.4%) of them had postoperative pulmonary complications. Risk scores varied from 0 to 12 in all patients. The risk scores of patients with postoperative pulmonary complications were higher than those of patients without postoperative pulmonary complications (7.27±2.50 vs. 6.82±2.67; P=0.203). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications as well as in the increase of risk scores (χ 2 =5.477, P=0.242). The area under the curve of predictive score was 0.539±0.040 (95%CI 0.461 to 0.618; P=0.324) in predicting the risk of pulmonary complications in patients after esophagectomy. CONCLUSION:In this study, the predictive power of the risk score proposed by Ferguson et al was poor in discriminating whether there were postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines suggested that both dopamine and norepinephrine may be used, but specific doses are not recommended. The aim of this study is to determine the predictive role of vasopressors in patients with shock in intensive care unit. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two patients, who had received vasopressors for 1 hour or more in intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2008 and October 2011, were included.There were 85 men and 37 women, with a median age of 65 years (55-73 years). Their clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The median simplified acute physiological score 3 (SAPS 3) was 50 (42-55). Multivariate analysis showed that septic shock (P=0.018, relative risk: 4.094; 95% confi dential interval: 1.274-13.156), SAPS 3 score at ICU admission (P=0.028, relative risk: 1.079; 95% confidential interval: 1.008-1.155), and norepinephrine administration (P<0.001, relative risk: 9.353; 95% confidential interval: 2.667-32.807) were independent predictors of ICU death. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that administration of norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute resulted in a sensitivity of 75.9% and a specifi city of 90.3% for the likelihood of ICU death. In patients who received norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute there was more ICU death (71.4% vs. 44.8%) and in-hospital death (76.2% vs. 48.3%) than in those who received norepinephrine <0.7 μg/kg per minute. These patients had also a decreased 510-day survival rate compared with those who received norepinephrine <0.7 μg/kg per minute (19.2% vs. 64.2%). CONCLUSION: Septic shock, SAPS 3 score at ICU admission, and norepinephrine administration were independent predictors of ICU death for patients with shock. Patients who received norepinephrine ≥0.7 μg/kg per minute had an increased ICU mortality, an increased inhospital mortality, and a decreased 510-day survival rate.

Sedation was associated with in-hospital death. The patients who had received sedation had a longer duration of ventilation, a longer stay in intensive care unit and in hospital, and an increased in-hospital mortality rate compared with the patients who did not receive sedation. Compared with daily interruption or light sedation, deep sedation increased the in-hospital mortality and decreased the 60-month survival for patients who had received sedation.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the risk factors and outcome of critically ill cancer patients with postoperative acute respiratory insuffi ciency. METHODS:The data of 190 critically ill cancer patients with postoperative acute respiratory insuffi ciency were retrospectively reviewed. The data of 321 patients with no acute respiratory insuffi ciency as controls were also collected. Clinical variables of the fi rst 24 hours after admission to intensive care unit were collected, including age, sex, comorbid disease, type of surgery, admission type, presence of shock, presence of acute kidney injury, presence of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute physiologic and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score, sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio. Duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, intensive care unit death, length of hospitalization, hospital death and one-year survival were calculated. RESULTS:The incidence of acute respiratory insufficiency was 37.2% (190/321). Multivariate logistic analysis showed a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (P=0.001), surgeryrelated infection (P=0.004), hypo-volemic shock (P<0.001), and emergency surgery (P=0.018), were independent risk factors of postoperative acute respiratory insufficiency. Compared with the patients without acute respiratory insuffi ciency, the patients with acute respiratory insuffi ciency had a prolonged length of intensive care unit stay (P<0.001), a prolonged length of hospitalization (P=0.006), increased intensive care unit mortality (P=0.001), and hospital mortality (P<0.001). Septic shock was shown to be the only independent prognostic factor of intensive care unit death for the patients with acute respiratory insufficiency (P=0.029, RR: 8.522, B=2.143, SE=0.982, Wald=4.758). Compared with the patients without acute respiratory insufficiency, those with acute respiratory insuffi ciency had a shortened one-year survival rate (78.7% vs. 97.1%, P<0.001).CONCLUSION: A history of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, surgery-related infection, hypovolemic shock and emergency surgery were risk factors of critically ill cancer patients with postoperative acute respiratory insuffi ciency. Septic shock was the only independent prognostic factor of intensive care unit death in patients with acute respiratory insufficiency. Compared with patients without acute respiratory insufficiency, those with acute respiratory insufficiency had adverse shortterm outcome and a decreased one-year survival rate.

Background: The efficacy and safety of tigecycline in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) is potentially controversial. Here we conducted the non-inferiority study to assess the efficacy and safety of tigecycline versus meropenem in the treatment of postoperative cIAIs.Methods: Data of abdominal tumor surgery patients with postoperative cIAIs admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2017 and December 2019 were collected. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in which 56 eligible patients with cIAIs randomly received intravenous tigecycline or meropenem for 3 to 14 days. Patients and clinicians were not blinded to the group allocation.Results: The total of 56 patients were enrolled, which were divided into 2 groups, one group included 30 patients receiving meropenem and another group included 26 receiving tigecycline therapy. The 2 groups were similar at demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. Microorganisms were isolated from 46 of 56 patients (82.14%), with a total of 107 pathogens were cultured in two groups. The two groups had similar distribution of infecting microorganisms. The primary end point was the clinical response at the end-oftherapy (EOT) visit and upon discharge visit and comprehensive efficacy. The clinical success rates were 83.33%, 76.67% for meropenem versus 76.92%, 88.46% for tigecycline at the EOT visit and upon discharge visit (P>0.05), respectively. Comprehensive efficacy did not significantly differ between two groups either. There were no significant differences in 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality between two groups (P>0.05).The univariable analysis identified that serum albumin at admission ICU, colorectal cancer on oncology type, postoperative abdominal bleeding were the risk factors for 60-day all-cause mortality. The multivariable analysis showed that postoperative abdominal bleeding were independent predictors of 60-day all-cause mortality. Gastrointestinal disorders and antibacterials-induced Fungal Infection were the most frequently reported adverse events (AEs). The incidence of AEs was similar between meropenem and tigecycline groups (P>0.05). Conclusions:Taken together, the study demonstrated that tigecycline is as effective and safe as meropenem for postoperative cIAIs in abdominal tumors patients. Tigecycline is non-inferior to meropenem.

Background: A great increase in the number of patients needs critical care to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to improvements in oncology. The aim of the study was to explore risk factors affecting survival of critically ill patients with solid cancers in ICU. Methods:The study retrospectively reviewed patients between 2001 and 2012, which were collected by Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA, USA.Results: A total of 38,508 adult patients, who were admitted to ICUs and 8,308 (21.6%) were diagnosed as an underlying malignancy; 1,671 and 3,165 adult patients with sold cancer were admitted to surgical ICU (SICU) and medical ICU (MICU), respectively. Patients in SICU had a higher survival rate at the point of 28-, 90-day, and 1-, 3-year than patients in MICU (P<0.001 for all). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age ≥70, emergency admission, the presence of metastases, Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) ≥30 and sepsis were independent risk factors affecting 28-day survival in SICU. In MICU, emergency admission, metastatic disease, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) ≥3, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) ≥39, Acute Physiology Score III (APS III) ≥40, Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) ≥30, Elixhauser comorbidity index ≥9 and sepsis were independent risk factors for 28-day survival rate. The area under curve (AUC) of the OASIS for predicting ICU mortality was 0.824 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.805-0.842], which was obviously higher than other scores in SICU. The AUC of the SAPS II for predicting ICU mortality was 0.820 (95% CI: 0.806-0.833), which was slightly higher than other scores in MICU.Conclusions: Patients with cancer in SICU have longer survive time than patients with cancer in MICU.The prediction of prognosis of critically ill cancer patients can guide treatment and optimize medical resources.

No abstract