4.2 Article

Hematologic malignancies in the medical intensive care unit - Outcomes and prognostic factors

Journal

HEMATOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 247-253

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/1607845414Y.0000000206

Keywords

Hematologic malignancies; ICU; Mechanical ventilation; Mortality

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To analyze clinical characteristics, treatment, outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) admitted to the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and to identify predictors of adverse outcome. Methods: We analyzed prospectively 170 patients. Data included: demographic characteristics, hematologic diagnosis, reasons for ICU admission, transplant status, the presence of neutropenia, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II and sequential organ failure assessment scores, and level of organ support. Predictors of ICU mortality were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: In total, 73% of patients had high-grade malignancy, 47.6% received intensive chemotherapy before admission, and 30% underwent hematologic stem cell transplantation procedure. In total, 116 (68.2%) of patients were mechanically ventilated; 88 (51.8%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Noninvasive ventilation started in 28 (16.5%) patients and was successful in 11 (6.5%). The ICU mortality rate was 53.5%, and the mortality of MV patients was 75.9%. Need for vasopressors at admission and MV were identified as independent predictors of fatal outcome. Conclusion: The ICU mortality of critically ill patients with HM is high, particularly in the group of MV. Need for vasopressors at admission and MV were independent predictors of ICU mortality. Majority of patients required invasive MV due to severe respiratory failure and non-invasive MV was sufficient only in small number of cases with favorable outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available