Impact of a Recent Chemotherapy on the Duration and Intensity of the Norepinephrine Support During Septic Shock

Sepsis and Cancer: An Interplay of Friends and Foes

Sepsis and cancer share a number of pathophysiological features, and both result from the inability of the host's immune system to cope with the initial insult (tissue invasion by pathogens and malignant cell transformation, respectively). The common coexistence of both disorders and the profound related alterations in immune homeostasis raise the question of their mutual impact on each other's course. This translational review aims to discuss the interactions between cancer and sepsis supported by clinical data and the translation to experimental models. The dramatic improvement in cancer has come at a cost of increased risks of life-threatening infectious complications. Investigating the long-term outcomes of sepsis survivors has revealed an unexpected susceptibility to cancer long after discharge from the ICU. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that an acute septic episode may harbor antitumoral properties under particular circumstances. Relevant double-hit animal models have provided clues to whether and how bacterial sepsis may impact malignant tumor growth. In sequential sepsis-then-cancer models, postseptic mice exhibited accelerated tumor growth. When using reverse cancer-then-sepsis models, bacterial sepsis applied to mice with cancer conversely resulted in inhibition or even regression of tumor growth. Experimental models thus highlight dual effects of sepsis on tumor growth, mostly depending on the sequence of insults, and allow deciphering the immune mechanisms and their relation with microorganisms.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

SETTING

ICU of a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

Management of sepsis in neutropenic cancer patients: 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) and Intensive Care Working Party (iCHOP) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Sepsis and septic shock are major causes of mortality during chemotherapy-induced neutropenia for malignancies requiring urgent treatment. Thus, awareness of the presenting characteristics and prompt management is most important. Improved management of sepsis during neutropenia may reduce the mortality of cancer therapies. However, optimal management may differ between neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients. The aim of the current guideline is to give evidence-based recommendations for hematologists, oncologists, and intensive care physicians on how to manage adult patients with neutropenia and sepsis.

Early prognostic factors in septic shock cancer patients: a prospective study with a proteomic approach

BACKGROUND

Organ failures are the main prognostic factors in septic shock. The aim was to assess classical clinico-biological parameters evaluating organ dysfunctions at intensive care unit admission, combined with proteomics, on day-30 mortality in critically ill onco-hematology patients admitted to the intensive care unit for septic shock.

METHODS

This was a prospective monocenter cohort study. Clinico-biological parameters were collected at admission. Plasma proteomics analyses were performed, including protein profiling using isobaric Tag for Relative and Absolute Quantification (iTRAQ) and subsequent validation by ELISA.

RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients were included. Day-30 mortality was 47%. All required vasopressors, 32% mechanical ventilation, 33% non-invasive ventilation and 13% renal-replacement therapy. iTRAQ-based proteomics identified von Willebrand factor as a protein of interest. Multivariate analysis identified four factors independently associated with day-30 mortality: positive fluid balance in the first 24 h (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01-1.12, P = 0.02), severe acute respiratory failure (odds ratio = 6.14_, 95% CI = 1.04-36.15, P = 0.04), von Willebrand factor plasma level > 439 ng/ml (odds ratio = 9.7, 95% CI = 1.52-61.98, P = 0.02), and bacteremia (odds ratio = 6.98, 95% CI = 1.17-41.6, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Endothelial dysfunction, revealed by proteomics, appears as an independent prognostic factor on day-30 mortality, as well as hydric balance, acute respiratory failure and bacteremia, in critically ill cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Endothelial failure is underestimated in clinical practice and represents an innovative therapeutic target.

Red blood cell transfusion in the resuscitation of septic patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Indications for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in septic acute circulatory failure remain unclear. We addressed the practices and the prognostic impact of RBC transfusion in the early resuscitation of severe sepsis and septic shock in patients with hematological malignancies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with hematological malignancies who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission in 2010-2011. Patients with a main admission diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock were included in the present study. We assessed RBC transfusion during the first two days as part of initial resuscitation.

RESULTS

Among the 1011 patients of the primary cohort, 631 (62.4%) were admitted to the ICU for severe sepsis (55%) or septic shock (45%). Among them, 210 (33.3%) patients received a median of 2 [interquartile 1-3] packed red cells during the first 48 h. Hemoglobin levels were lower in transfused patients at days 1 and 2 and became similar to those of non-transfused patients at day 3. Early RBC transfusion was more likely in patients with myeloid neoplasms and neutropenia. Transfused patients displayed more severe presentations as assessed by higher admission SOFA scores and blood lactate levels and the further requirements for organ failure supports. RBC transfusion within the first two days was associated with higher day 7 (20.5 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02), in-ICU (39 vs. 25.2%, p < 0.001) and in-hospital (51 vs. 36.6%, p < 0.001) mortality rates. RBC transfusion remained independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality in multivariate logistic regression (OR 1.52 [1.03-2.26], p = 0.03) and propensity score-adjusted (OR 1.64 [1.05-2.57], p = 0.03) analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

RBC transfusion is commonly used in the early resuscitation of septic patients with hematological malignancies. Although it was preferentially provided to the most severe patients, we found it possibly associated with an increased risk of death.

The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematology patients

Over the coming years, accelerating progress against cancer will be associated with an increased number of patients who require life-sustaining therapies for infectious or toxic chemotherapy-related events. Major changes include increased number of cancer patients admitted to the ICU with full-code status or for time-limited trials, increased survival and quality of life in ICU survivors, changing prognostic factors, early ICU admission for optimal monitoring, and use of noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. In this review, experts in the management of critically ill cancer patients highlight recent changes in the use and the results of intensive care in patients with malignancies. They seek to put forward a standard of care for the management of these patients and highlight important updates that are required to care for them. The research agenda they suggest includes important studies to be conducted in the next few years to increase our understanding of organ dysfunction in this population and to improve our ability to appropriately use life-saving therapies or select new therapeutic approaches that are likely to improve outcomes. This review aims to provide more guidance for the daily management of patients with cancer, in whom outcomes are constantly improving, as is our global ability to fight against what is becoming the leading cause of mortality in industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

Critical care of patients with cancer

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE The increasing prevalence of patients living with cancer in conjunction with the rapid progress in cancer therapy will lead to a growing number of patients with cancer who will require intensive care treatment. Fortunately, the development of more effective oncologic therapies, advances in critical care, and improvements in patient selection have led to an increased survival of critically ill patients with cancer. As a consequence, critical care has become an important cornerstone in the continuum of modern cancer care. Although, in many aspects, critical care for patients with cancer does not differ from intensive care for other seriously ill patients, there are several challenging issues that are unique to this patient population and require special knowledge and skills. The optimal management of critically ill patients with cancer necessitates expertise in oncology, critical care, and palliative medicine. Cancer specialists therefore have to be familiar with key principles of intensive care for critically ill patients with cancer. This review provides an overview of the state-of-the-art in the individualized management of critically ill patients with cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:496-517. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

How to treat severe infections in critically ill neutropenic patients?

Severe infections in neutropenic patient often progress rapidly leading to life-threatening organ dysfunction requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit. Management strategies include early adequate appropriate empirical antimicrobial, early admission to ICU to avoid any delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of organ dysfunction. This review discusses the main clinical situations encountered in critically ill neutropenic patients. Specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches have been proposed for acute respiratory failure, shock, neutropenic enterocolitis, catheter-related infections, cellulitis and primary bacteriemia. Non anti-infectious agents and recent advances will also be discussed. At present, most of large-scale studies and recommendations in neutropenic patients stem from hematological patients and will need further validation in ICU patients.

Racial differences in vasopressor requirements for septic shock

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare vasopressor requirements between African American (AA) patients and white patients in septic shock.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort review conducted over a 2-year period measuring total and mean dosage of various vasopressors used between two racial groups during the treatment of patients admitted with septic shock. The study included patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock at an 805-bed tertiary, academic center. All septic shock patients were managed with vasopressors. Vasopressor selection, dosage, and duration were at the discretion of the treating physician. Total, mean, and duration of vasopressor dosing requirements were obtained for study participants. Comorbidities, prehospitalization antihypertensive medication requirements, intravenous fluids given during the septic shock phase, and source of infection were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-nine patients with septic shock were analyzed, of which 96 (60.4%) were AAs (P < 0.059). African Americans had higher rates of end-stage renal disease and hypertension compared with whites, 85.7% vs. 14.3% (P < 0.011; odds ratio [OR], 15.684) and 68.3% vs. 31.7% (P < 0.007; OR, 3.357), respectively. Norepinephrine (NE) was administered to 150 patients, 57.2% of which were AAs (P < 0.509). Thirteen patients received dopamine (5% AAs, P < 0.588), 40 patients received phenylephrine (15.7% AAs, P < 0.451), and five patients received epinephrine (1.9% AAs, P < 0.660). Comparing vasopressors between races, only NE showed statistical significance via logistic regression modeling for the AA race in terms of total dosage (AAs 736.8 [SD, 897.3] μg vs. whites 370 [SD, 554.2] μg, P < 0.003), duration of vasopressor used (AAs 38.38 [SD, 34.75] h vs. whites 29.09 [SD, 27.11] h, P < 0.037), and mean dosage (AAs 21.08 [SD, 22.23] μg/h vs. whites 12.37 [SD, 13.86] μg/h, P < 0.01). Mortality between groups was not significant. Logistic regression identified discrepancy of the mean dose NE in AAs compared with whites, with OR of 1.043 (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

African American patients with septic shock were treated with higher doses of NE and required longer duration of NE administration compared with white patients.