Impact of two different comorbidity measures on the 6-month mortality of critically ill cancer patients
- 199 Downloads
To evaluate the impact of two different comorbidity measures on the 6-month mortality of severely ill cancer patients.
Design and setting
Prospective cohort study in a ten-bed oncological medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU).
A total of 772 consecutive patients were included over a 45-month period. The mean age was 57.6±16.4 years, and 642 (83%) patients had solid tumors.
Measurements and results
Data were collected on admission and during ICU stay. Comorbidities were evaluated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation (ACE-27). The ICU, hospital, and 6-month mortality rates were 34%, 47%, and 58%, respectively. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (33%), diabetes mellitus (8%), and chronic pulmonary disease (7%). There were important differences between the two indices regarding the comorbidity evaluation. Using the ACE-27, 389 patients (50%) had comorbid ailments that were classified as mild (31%), moderate (14%), and severe (5%) according to the comorbidity severity. According to the CCI, 212 patients (27%) had a comorbidity, and their median score was 1 (1–2). In the multivariable Cox proportional hazard models only the presence of a severe comorbidity by the ACE-27 was associated with increased mortality. The CCI was not independently associated with the outcome. Other outcome predictors were older age, poor performance status, active cancer, need of mechanical ventilation, and severity of acute organ failures.
Severe comorbidities must be considered in the outcome evaluation of ICU cancer patients. The ACE-27 seems to be a useful instrument for prognostic assessment in this population.
KeywordsCancer Comorbidity Intensive care Mortality Survival analysis Outcome
- 1.Azoulay E, Alberti C, Bornstain C, Leleu G, Moreau D, Recher C, Chevret S, Le Gall JR, Brochard L, Schlemmer B (2001) Improved survival in cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support: impact of noninvasive mechanical ventilatory support. Crit Care Med 29:519–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Groeger JS, White P Jr, Nierman DM, Glassman J, Shi W, Horak D, Price K (1999) Outcome for cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation. J Clin Oncol 17:991–997Google Scholar
- 14.Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A, Bruining H, Reinhart CK, Suter PM, Thijs LG (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei III E, Brindley C, Gold GL, Shnider B, Oviedo R, Gorman J, Jones Jr R, Jonsson U, Colsky J, Chalmers T, Ferguson B, Dederick M, Holland J, Selawry O, Regelson W, Lasagna L, Owens Jr AH (1960) Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 11:7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RM, Sibbald WJ (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 101:1644–1655PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Johnston AS, Piccirillo JF, Creech C, Littenberg B, Jeffe D, Spitznagel EL (2001) Validation of a comorbidity education program. J Registry Manage 28:125–131Google Scholar
- 20.Kleinbaum DG (1996) Survival analysis: a self-learning text. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481Google Scholar