Key result
Mechanical ventilation in cancer patients resulted in a 26% survival rate to extubation, with long-term survival dropping to 13% at two months and 7% at six months.
Why the study?
What are the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation compared to general intensive care patients?
Observational (n=180)
What are the survival outcomes and clinical characteristics of cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation compared to general intensive care patients?
Cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation have poor long-term survival, though immediate survival is comparable to other patients with respiratory failure.
Supports individualized decision-making for mechanical ventilation in cancer; leaves open direct comparisons with non-cancer respiratory failure cohorts.
A review of 180 cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation disclosed that 26% survived to extubation, and 13% and 7% were alive at two and six months, respectively. Mortality was related to several factors individually and the cumulative number of organ systems dysfunctioning in a given patient. Compared with general intensive care patients, those with respiratory failure and neoplastic disease demonstrated a high incidence of drug-induced pulmonary disease, hematologic abnormalities, pneumothorax, and infections with multiple and unusual organisms--all of which alter the approach to management. Although the long-term survival was poor, immediate survival was comparable with that of many groups of patients with respiratory failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard M. Snow (1979) conducted an observational in Cancer with respiratory failure (n=180). Mechanical ventilation vs. General intensive care patients was evaluated on Survival to extubation. Mechanical ventilation in cancer patients resulted in a 26% survival rate to extubation, with long-term survival dropping to 13% at two months and 7% at six months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: