Haematology and haemotherapy Service
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee032/ee032e9f2c2833c8ae8272a7546ca592dafaa06c" alt="Ms. Teresa Knight Asorey"
Contributions
Type: Publication Only
Background
Patients with haematological malignancies admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU) have a high mortality rate and poor survival. Identifying predictors of mortality and survival may be useful for clinical decision making and can help to improve survival. The differences in mortality rate and survival outcomes between recipients of haemoipietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and non-transplant haematologic patients have been poorly studied.
Aims
to compare survival rate after intensive care management between recipients of haematopoietic stem cell transplant and non-transplant patients with haematologic malignancies.
Methods
prospective observational study of all consecutive patients with haematologic malignancies admitted to the ICU. Patients have been undergone an HSCT or not. Period: December 2012 through April 2014. Variables that were analyzed included: demographics, haematological disease, stage of the haematological disease, main reason for admission into the ICU, critical score evaluation (APACHE II y SOFA), organ failure, organic support therapy, death rate in the ICU and in hospital during the following 28 days after admission. Comparisons of quantitative and qualitative variables between independent groups were analyzed by Student t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed variables, and chi-square test, Fisher's exact test in 2x2 tables, depending on sample size.
Results
63 consecutive patients were included and their data analyzed. Twenty seven have undergone an HSCT and 36 did not. HSCT recipients tended to be younger [median age 51 (34-55) vs. 57 (43-66); p=0,01] and they were admitted to the ICU in a worst clinical condition [SOFA: 10 (8-14) vs. 8 (4-11); p=0,01] and APACHE II [26 (19-29) vs. 21 (16-28); p=0,3]. The most frequent cause of admission to the ICU was respiratory failure (77,8 %), without differences between both groups (p=0,5). However, recipients of HSCT needed more frequently invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; p=0,007) and suffered significantly more liver failure (77,8% vs. 30, 6%; p<0,001) and renal failure (85,2% vs. 44,4%, p<0,001). Haemodynamic failure was also more frequent in the HSCT recipients than in non-transplant patients (88, 9% vs. 63, 9%; p=0, 02). Hospital mortality rate 28 days after ICU admission of patients with HSCT was higher (92,6%) than for non-HSCT patients (44,4%; p<0,001). There were no significant differences between both groups in the rest of analyzed variables
Summary
recipients of an haemopoietic stem cell transplant have a significantly higher mortality rate and worst survival than non-transplant haematologic patients after intensive care admission. The causes for such an outcome could be the worst clinical condition at ICU admission, more need for invasive mechanical ventilation and higher rate of organ failure in HSCT recipients. Knowing the reasons for these differences merit further investigation and may help to improve survival of both settings of patients
Session topic: Publication Only
Type: Publication Only
Background
Patients with haematological malignancies admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU) have a high mortality rate and poor survival. Identifying predictors of mortality and survival may be useful for clinical decision making and can help to improve survival. The differences in mortality rate and survival outcomes between recipients of haemoipietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and non-transplant haematologic patients have been poorly studied.
Aims
to compare survival rate after intensive care management between recipients of haematopoietic stem cell transplant and non-transplant patients with haematologic malignancies.
Methods
prospective observational study of all consecutive patients with haematologic malignancies admitted to the ICU. Patients have been undergone an HSCT or not. Period: December 2012 through April 2014. Variables that were analyzed included: demographics, haematological disease, stage of the haematological disease, main reason for admission into the ICU, critical score evaluation (APACHE II y SOFA), organ failure, organic support therapy, death rate in the ICU and in hospital during the following 28 days after admission. Comparisons of quantitative and qualitative variables between independent groups were analyzed by Student t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed variables, and chi-square test, Fisher's exact test in 2x2 tables, depending on sample size.
Results
63 consecutive patients were included and their data analyzed. Twenty seven have undergone an HSCT and 36 did not. HSCT recipients tended to be younger [median age 51 (34-55) vs. 57 (43-66); p=0,01] and they were admitted to the ICU in a worst clinical condition [SOFA: 10 (8-14) vs. 8 (4-11); p=0,01] and APACHE II [26 (19-29) vs. 21 (16-28); p=0,3]. The most frequent cause of admission to the ICU was respiratory failure (77,8 %), without differences between both groups (p=0,5). However, recipients of HSCT needed more frequently invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; p=0,007) and suffered significantly more liver failure (77,8% vs. 30, 6%; p<0,001) and renal failure (85,2% vs. 44,4%, p<0,001). Haemodynamic failure was also more frequent in the HSCT recipients than in non-transplant patients (88, 9% vs. 63, 9%; p=0, 02). Hospital mortality rate 28 days after ICU admission of patients with HSCT was higher (92,6%) than for non-HSCT patients (44,4%; p<0,001). There were no significant differences between both groups in the rest of analyzed variables
Summary
recipients of an haemopoietic stem cell transplant have a significantly higher mortality rate and worst survival than non-transplant haematologic patients after intensive care admission. The causes for such an outcome could be the worst clinical condition at ICU admission, more need for invasive mechanical ventilation and higher rate of organ failure in HSCT recipients. Knowing the reasons for these differences merit further investigation and may help to improve survival of both settings of patients
Session topic: Publication Only