Roelie M Wösten-van Asperen1, Josephus P J van Gestel2, Martine van Grotel3, Eva Tschiedel4, Christian Dohna-Schwake4, Frédéric V Valla5, Jef Willems6, Jeppe S Angaard Nielsen7, Martin F Krause8, Jenny Potratz9, Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink3, Joe Brierley10. 1. Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.m.vanasperen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Universitätsklinik Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Universitaire Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon-Bron, France. 6. Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 7. Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 9. Department of General Pediatrics-Intensive Care Medicine, University Children's Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. 10. Department of Critical Care & Bioethics, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Great Ormond Street, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for children diagnosed with cancer have improved dramatically over the past 20 years. However, although 40% of pediatric cancer patients require at least one intensive care admission throughout their disease course, PICU outcomes and resource utilization by this population have not been rigorously studied in this specific group. METHODS: Using a systematic strategy, we searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases for articles describing PICU mortality of pediatric cancer patients admitted to PICU. Two investigators independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed data quality, and extracted data. We pooled PICU mortality estimates using random-effects models and examined mortality trends over time using meta-regression models. RESULTS: Out of 1218 identified manuscripts, 31 studies were included covering 16,853 PICU admissions with the majority being retrospective in nature. Overall pooled weighted mortality was 27.8% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23.7-31.9%). Mortality decreased slightly over time when post-operative patients were excluded. The use of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio (OR): 18.49 [95% CI 13.79-24.78], p < 0.001), inotropic support (OR: 14.05 [95% CI 9.16-21.57], p < 0.001), or continuous renal replacement therapy (OR: 3.24 [95% CI 1.31-8.04], p = 0.01) was significantly associated with PICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PICU mortality rates of pediatric cancer patients are far higher when compared to current mortality rates of the general PICU population. PICU mortality has remained relatively unchanged over the past decades, a slight decrease was only seen when post-operative patients were excluded. This compared infavorably with the improved mortality seen in adults with cancer admitted to ICU, where research-led improvements have led to the paradigm of unlimited, aggressive ICU management without any limitations on resuscitations status, for a time-limited trial.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for children diagnosed with cancer have improved dramatically over the past 20 years. However, although 40% of pediatric cancerpatients require at least one intensive care admission throughout their disease course, PICU outcomes and resource utilization by this population have not been rigorously studied in this specific group. METHODS: Using a systematic strategy, we searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases for articles describing PICU mortality of pediatric cancerpatients admitted to PICU. Two investigators independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed data quality, and extracted data. We pooled PICU mortality estimates using random-effects models and examined mortality trends over time using meta-regression models. RESULTS: Out of 1218 identified manuscripts, 31 studies were included covering 16,853 PICU admissions with the majority being retrospective in nature. Overall pooled weighted mortality was 27.8% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23.7-31.9%). Mortality decreased slightly over time when post-operative patients were excluded. The use of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio (OR): 18.49 [95% CI 13.79-24.78], p < 0.001), inotropic support (OR: 14.05 [95% CI 9.16-21.57], p < 0.001), or continuous renal replacement therapy (OR: 3.24 [95% CI 1.31-8.04], p = 0.01) was significantly associated with PICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PICU mortality rates of pediatric cancerpatients are far higher when compared to current mortality rates of the general PICU population. PICU mortality has remained relatively unchanged over the past decades, a slight decrease was only seen when post-operative patients were excluded. This compared infavorably with the improved mortality seen in adults with cancer admitted to ICU, where research-led improvements have led to the paradigm of unlimited, aggressive ICU management without any limitations on resuscitations status, for a time-limited trial.
Authors: Kethlen Roberta Roussenq; Ana Paula Lautenschlager; Ana Patricia Dubón; Suellen Cristina Roussenq; Mirella Dias; Magnus Benetti Journal: Int J Health Sci (Qassim) Date: 2022 May-Jun
Authors: Marijn Soeteman; Teus H Kappen; Martine van Engelen; Ellen Kilsdonk; Erik Koomen; Edward E S Nieuwenhuis; Wim J E Tissing; Marta Fiocco; Marry van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Roelie M Wösten-van Asperen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Saad Ghafoor; Kimberly Fan; Sarah Williams; Amanda Brown; Sarah Bowman; Kenneth L Pettit; Shilpa Gorantla; Rebecca Quillivan; Sarah Schwartzberg; Amanda Curry; Lucy Parkhurst; Marshay James; Jennifer Smith; Kristin Canavera; Andrew Elliott; Michael Frett; Deni Trone; Jacqueline Butrum-Sullivan; Cynthia Barger; Mary Lorino; Jennifer Mazur; Mandi Dodson; Morgan Melancon; Leigh Anne Hall; Jason Rains; Yvonne Avent; Jonathan Burlison; Fang Wang; Haitao Pan; Mary Anne Lenk; R Ray Morrison; Sapna R Kudchadkar Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Anouk Steur; Paulien A M A Raymakers-Janssen; Martin C J Kneyber; Sandra Dijkstra; Job B M van Woensel; Dick A van Waardenburg; Cornelis P van de Ven; Alida F W van der Steeg; Marc Wijnen; Marc R Lilien; Ronald R de Krijger; Harm van Tinteren; Annemieke S Littooij; Geert O Janssens; Annemarie M L Peek; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Annelies M Mavinkurve-Groothuis; Martine van Grotel; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Roelie M Wösten-van Asperen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Shilpushp J Bhosale; Malini Joshi; Vijaya P Patil; Amol T Kothekar; Sheila Nainan Myatra; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Atul P Kulkarni Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2021-10