ArticleCureus2021
The Reality of Critical Cancer Patients in a Polyvalent Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective With the increasing incidence of cancer and the rise in the survival rates of cancer patients, more and more oncological candidates are being considered for admission to intensive care units (ICU). Several studies have demonstrated no difference in the outcomes of cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients. Our study aimed to describe and analyze the outcomes related to cancer patients in a polyvalent ICU. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive oncological patients admitted to a polyvalent ICU (2013-2017). Cox model and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to analyze the results. Results A total of 236 patients were included in the study; the mean age of the patients was 53.5 ± 15.3 years, and 65% of them were male. The main cancer types were those related to the central nervous system (CNS; 31%), as well as gastrointestinal (18%), genitourinary (17%), and hematological (15%). Curative/diagnostic surgeries (49%) and sepsis/septic shock (17%) were the main reasons for admission. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) scores in hematological patients vs. solid tumors were as follows: 30 vs. 20 and 63 vs. 38, respectively (p<0.005). Vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and renal replacement therapy (RRT) were used more widely in hematological patients compared to solid-tumor patients. Length of stay was longer in hematological patients vs. solid-tumor patients (12.8 vs. 7 days, p=0.002). The median overall survival in hematological patients was one month and that in solid-tumor patients was 5.8 months (p<0.005). The survival rate at six months was better than described in the existing literature (48 vs. 32.4%). Conclusion Both SAPS II and APACHE II scores were reasonably accurate in predicting mortality, demonstrating their value in cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.