BACKGROUND: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often assumed to have poor outcomes after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about ICU utilization and post-ICU outcomes in this population. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis for 330 patients who were 60 years old or older and were diagnosed with AML between 2005 and 2013 at 2 hospitals in Boston.They used descriptive statistics to examine the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU as well as their mortality and functional recovery. They used logistic regression to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (29%) were admitted to the ICU, primarily because of respiratory failure (39%), septic shock (28%), and neurological compromise (9%). The proportions of patients who survived to hospital discharge, 90 days, and 1 year were 47% (45 of 96), 35% (34 of 96), and 30% (29 of 96), respectively. At 90 days, 76% of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1, and 86% were in complete remission (CR) and/or continued to receive AML-directed therapy. In a multivariate analysis, a poorer baseline ECOG PS score (odds ratio, 2.76; P = .013) and the need for 2 or more life-sustaining therapies (ie, vasopressors, invasive ventilation, and/or renal replacement therapy; odds ratio, 12.4; P < .001) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost one-third of older patients with AML are admitted to an ICU, nearly half survive to hospital discharge with good functional outcomes. The baseline performance status and the need for 2 or more life-sustaining therapies predict hospital mortality. These data support the judicious use of ICU resources for older patients with AML.
BACKGROUND: Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often assumed to have poor outcomes after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about ICU utilization and post-ICU outcomes in this population. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis for 330 patients who were 60 years old or older and were diagnosed with AML between 2005 and 2013 at 2 hospitals in Boston.They used descriptive statistics to examine the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU as well as their mortality and functional recovery. They used logistic regression to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (29%) were admitted to the ICU, primarily because of respiratory failure (39%), septic shock (28%), and neurological compromise (9%). The proportions of patients who survived to hospital discharge, 90 days, and 1 year were 47% (45 of 96), 35% (34 of 96), and 30% (29 of 96), respectively. At 90 days, 76% of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1, and 86% were in complete remission (CR) and/or continued to receive AML-directed therapy. In a multivariate analysis, a poorer baseline ECOG PS score (odds ratio, 2.76; P = .013) and the need for 2 or more life-sustaining therapies (ie, vasopressors, invasive ventilation, and/or renal replacement therapy; odds ratio, 12.4; P < .001) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost one-third of older patients with AML are admitted to an ICU, nearly half survive to hospital discharge with good functional outcomes. The baseline performance status and the need for 2 or more life-sustaining therapies predict hospital mortality. These data support the judicious use of ICU resources for older patients with AML.
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; H Thomas Stelfox; Robert C McDermid; Darryl B Rolfson; Ross T Tsuyuki; Nadia Baig; Barbara Artiuch; Quazi Ibrahim; Daniel E Stollery; Ella Rokosh; Sumit R Majumdar Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Daren Heyland; Deborah Cook; Sean M Bagshaw; Allan Garland; Henry T Stelfox; Sangeeta Mehta; Peter Dodek; Jim Kutsogiannis; Karen Burns; John Muscedere; Alexis F Turgeon; Rob Fowler; Xuran Jiang; Andrew G Day Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Frederick R Appelbaum; Holly Gundacker; David R Head; Marilyn L Slovak; Cheryl L Willman; John E Godwin; Jeanne E Anderson; Stephen H Petersdorf Journal: Blood Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Hartmut Döhner; Elihu H Estey; Sergio Amadori; Frederick R Appelbaum; Thomas Büchner; Alan K Burnett; Hervé Dombret; Pierre Fenaux; David Grimwade; Richard A Larson; Francesco Lo-Coco; Tomoki Naoe; Dietger Niederwieser; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Miguel A Sanz; Jorge Sierra; Martin S Tallman; Bob Löwenberg; Clara D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: John Muscedere; Braden Waters; Aditya Varambally; Sean M Bagshaw; J Gordon Boyd; David Maslove; Stephanie Sibley; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Hannah R Abrams; Ryan D Nipp; Lara Traeger; Mitchell W Lavoie; Matthew J Reynolds; Nneka N Ufere; Annie C Wang; Kofi Boateng; Thomas W LeBlanc; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-26
Authors: Øystein Bruserud; Galina Tsykunova; Maria Hernandez-Valladares; Hakon Reikvam; Tor Henrik Anderson Tvedt Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-05-02
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Chandrika Sanapala; Erin Elizabeth Watson; Marielle Jensen-Battaglia; Michelle C Janelsins; Heidi D Klepin; Rebecca Schnall; Eva Culakova; Paula Vertino; Martha Susiarjo; Po-Ju Lin; Jason H Mendler; Jane L Liesveld; Eric J Huselton; Kathryn Taberner; Supriya G Mohile; Karen Mustian Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-12