Literature DB >> 23324882

Impact of a recent chemotherapy on the duration and intensity of the norepinephrine support during septic shock.

David Schnell1, Sébastien Besset, Etienne Lengliné, Nicolas Maziers, Lara Zafrani, Danielle Reuter, Anne-Sophie Moreau, Emmanuel Canet, Virginie Lemiale, Elie Azoulay.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the dose and the duration of vasopressor during septic shock in recently treated cancer patients, untreated cancer patients, and patients without malignancy. This was a retrospective single-center study. This study was performed on a 12-bed medical intensive care unit at a teaching hospital. There were 147 patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock: 82 cancer patients recently treated (TCPs), 20 untreated cancer patients (UCPs), and 45 without malignancy (NPs). The primary outcomes were the maximal dose and the duration of vasopressor support. Treated cancer patients were younger (P < 0.0001) and compared with NPs had less comorbidity (P = 0.003), had more frequently an intra-abdominal source of sepsis (P = 0.011), less frequently a gram-positive bacteria (P = 0.036), and a shorter delay for antibiotics (P = 0.029). All patients received norepinephrine with similar maximal doses (0.66 [0.29-1.5] µg · kg(-1) · min(-1) in TCPs vs. 0.82 [0.41-1.4] µg · kg(-1) · min(-1) in NPs and 0.79 [0.48-1.7] µg · kg(-1) · min(-1) in UCPs; P = 0.61) and duration in the three groups (2 [2-4] days in TCPs vs. 3 [2-4] days in NPs and 3 [2-5] days in UCPs; P = 0.13). Mechanical ventilation (P = 0.11), renal replacement therapy (P = 0.19), and 28-day mortality (43% in TCPs vs. 49% in NPs, and 50% in UCPs; P = 0.77) were similar between the three groups. Cancer patients recently treated with chemotherapy had similar needs in vasopressor support during septic shock compared with untreated cancer patients and patients without malignancy. Mortality was not different in cancer and noncancer patients with septic shock.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23324882     DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3182810a0f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Shock        ISSN: 1073-2322            Impact factor:   3.454


  3 in total

Review 1.  The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematology patients.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Peter Schellongowski; Michael Darmon; Philippe R Bauer; Dominique Benoit; Pieter Depuydt; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Virginie Lemiale; Maarten van Vliet; Anne-Pascale Meert; Djamel Mokart; Stephen M Pastores; Anders Perner; Frédéric Pène; Peter Pickkers; Kathryn A Puxty; Francois Vincent; Jorge Salluh; Ayman O Soubani; Massimo Antonelli; Thomas Staudinger; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Marcio Soares
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 2.  How to treat severe infections in critically ill neutropenic patients?

Authors:  Lara Zafrani; Elie Azoulay
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 3.090

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

Authors:  Adrien Mirouse; Matthieu Resche-Rigon; Virginie Lemiale; Djamel Mokart; Achille Kouatchet; Julien Mayaux; François Vincent; Martine Nyunga; Fabrice Bruneel; Antoine Rabbat; Christine Lebert; Pierre Perez; Anne Renault; Anne-Pascale Meert; Dominique Benoit; Rebecca Hamidfar; Mercé Jourdain; Michaël Darmon; Elie Azoulay; Frédéric Pène
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 6.925

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.