Sepsis and Septic Shock in Cancer Patients

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Imrana Malik ◽  
Joseph L. Nates
2021 ◽  
pp. 105477382199968
Author(s):  
Anas Alsharawneh

Sepsis and neutropenia are considered the primary life-threatening complications of cancer treatment and are the leading cause of hospitalization and death. The objective was to study whether patients with neutropenia, sepsis, and septic shock were identified appropriately at triage and receive timely treatment within the emergency setting. Also, we investigated the effect of undertriage on key treatment outcomes. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all accessible records of admitted adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, sepsis, and septic shock. Our results identified that the majority of patients were inappropriately triaged to less urgent triage categories. Patients’ undertriage significantly prolonged multiple emergency timeliness indicators and extended length of stay within the emergency department and hospital. These effects suggest that triage implementation must be objective, consistent, and accurate because of the several influences of the assigned triage scoring on treatment and health outcomes.


2022 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Maria Mota Silva ◽  
Danielle Samara Tavares de Oliveira-Figueiredo ◽  
Adilma da Cunha Cavalcanti

ABSTRACT Objectives: to analyze factors associated with sepsis and septic shock in cancer patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Methods: cross-sectional, retrospective study with a quantitative approach, with a sample of 239 patients in an oncology hospital. Secondary data from medical records were used. The outcome variable was “presence of sepsis and/or septic shock”; and exposures: sex, length of stay, origin, use of invasive procedures and primary tumor site. Descriptive, bivariate analyzes and multiple logistic regression models were performed. Results: the prevalence of sepsis was 95% CI: 14.7-24.7 and septic shock of 95% CI: 37.7-50.3. In the multiple analysis, sepsis and/or septic shock were associated with hospital stay longer than seven days, being from the Emergency Department, presence of invasive procedures and hematological site. Conclusions: sepsis and/or septic shock in cancer patients were associated with clinical characteristics and health care factors.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 440.e7-440.e13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Gómez Ravetti ◽  
Anselmo Dornas Moura ◽  
Érica Leandro Vieira ◽  
Ênio Roberto Pietra Pedroso ◽  
Antônio Lúcio Teixeira

Critical Care ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. P409
Author(s):  
E Gromova ◽  
M Kisselevskiy ◽  
N Anisimova ◽  
L Kuznetsova

MedPharmRes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Bien Le ◽  
Dai Huynh ◽  
Mai Tuan ◽  
Minh Phan ◽  
Thao Pham ◽  
...  

Objectives: to evaluate the fluid responsiveness according to fluid bolus triggers and their combination in severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: observational study. Patients and Methods: patients with severe sepsis and septic shock who already received fluid after rescue phase of resuscitation. Fluid bolus (FB) was prescribed upon perceived hypovolemic manifestations: low central venous pressure (CVP), low blood pressure, tachycardia, low urine output (UOP), hyperlactatemia. FB was performed by Ringer lactate 500 ml/30 min and responsiveness was defined by increasing in stroke volume (SV) ≥15%. Results: 84 patients were enrolled, among them 30 responded to FB (35.7%). Demographic and hemodynamic profile before fluid bolus were similar between responders and non-responders, except CVP was lower in responders (7.3 ± 3.4 mmHg vs 9.2 ± 3.6 mmHg) (p 0.018). Fluid response in low CVP, low blood pressure, tachycardia, low UOP, hyperlactatemia were 48.6%, 47.4%, 38.5%, 37.0%, 36.8% making the odd ratio (OR) of these triggers were 2.81 (1.09-7.27), 1.60 (0.54-4.78), 1.89 (0.58-6.18), 1.15 (0.41-3.27) and 1.27 (0.46-3.53) respectively. Although CVP < 8 mmHg had a higher response rate, the association was not consistent at lower cut-offs. The combination of these triggers appeared to raise fluid response but did not reach statistical significance: 26.7% (1 trigger), 31.0% (2 triggers), 35.7% (3 triggers), 55.6% (4 triggers), 100% (5 triggers). Conclusions: fluid responsiveness was low in optimization phase of resuscitation. No fluid bolus trigger was superior to the others in term of providing a higher responsiveness, their combination did not improve fluid responsiveness as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document