BACKGROUND: Survival rates from mechanical ventilation (MV) in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation are poor, but little is known about the need for and outcomes from MV in patients who undergo autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of and risk factors for the use of MV in recipients of AHSCT and to identify predictors of survival in mechanically ventilated AHSCT patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort analysis SETTING: Tertiary-care, university-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-nine consecutive patients who underwent AHSCT. INTERVENTIONS: Patient surveillance and data collection. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was the need for MV, and the secondary end point was survival after MV. Of 159 patients, 17 required MV (10. 7%). Three variables were associated with the need for MV: increasing age, use of total body irradiation in the conditioning regimen, and treatment with amphotericin B. As a screening test to predict the need for MV, no risk factor had a sensitivity or specificity > 82%. Three of the 17 mechanically ventilated patients (17.6%) survived to discharge. Only the mean APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II score separated survivors from nonsurvivors (21.7 vs 31.4; p = 0.029). Both the duration of MV and the length of stay in the ICU were similar in survivors and nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MV is infrequently needed following AHSCT. Although survival after MV in these patients is limited, clinical variables do not reliably allow clinicians to prospectively identify patients destined to die.
BACKGROUND: Survival rates from mechanical ventilation (MV) in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation are poor, but little is known about the need for and outcomes from MV in patients who undergo autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of and risk factors for the use of MV in recipients of AHSCT and to identify predictors of survival in mechanically ventilated AHSCT patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort analysis SETTING: Tertiary-care, university-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-nine consecutive patients who underwent AHSCT. INTERVENTIONS:Patient surveillance and data collection. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was the need for MV, and the secondary end point was survival after MV. Of 159 patients, 17 required MV (10. 7%). Three variables were associated with the need for MV: increasing age, use of total body irradiation in the conditioning regimen, and treatment with amphotericin B. As a screening test to predict the need for MV, no risk factor had a sensitivity or specificity > 82%. Three of the 17 mechanically ventilated patients (17.6%) survived to discharge. Only the mean APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II score separated survivors from nonsurvivors (21.7 vs 31.4; p = 0.029). Both the duration of MV and the length of stay in the ICU were similar in survivors and nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MV is infrequently needed following AHSCT. Although survival after MV in these patients is limited, clinical variables do not reliably allow clinicians to prospectively identify patients destined to die.
Authors: Radoslaw Owczuk; Magdalena A Wujtewicz; Wioletta Sawicka; Anna Wadrzyk; Maria Wujtewicz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Do Hyoung Lim; Jeeyun Lee; Hong Ghi Lee; Byeong-Bae Park; Kyong Ran Peck; Won Sup Oh; Sang Hoon Ji; Se-Hoon Lee; Joon Oh Park; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuck Im; Won Ki Kang; Keunchil Park Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Peter A Hampshire; Catherine A Welch; Lawrence A McCrossan; Katharine Francis; David A Harrison Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 9.097