Share this article on:

Impact of a Recent Chemotherapy on the Duration and Intensity of the Norepinephrine Support During Septic Shock

Schnell, David; Besset, Sébastien; Lengliné, Etienne; Maziers, Nicolas; Zafrani, Lara; Reuter, Danielle; Moreau, Anne-Sophie; Canet, Emmanuel; Lemiale, Virginie; Azoulay, Élie

doi: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3182810a0f
Clinical Aspects
Editor's Choice

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to compare the dose and the duration of vasopressor during septic shock in recently treated cancer patients, untreated cancer patients, and patients without malignancy. This was a retrospective single-center study. This study was performed on a 12-bed medical intensive care unit at a teaching hospital. There were 147 patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock: 82 cancer patients recently treated (TCPs), 20 untreated cancer patients (UCPs), and 45 without malignancy (NPs). The primary outcomes were the maximal dose and the duration of vasopressor support. Treated cancer patients were younger (P < 0.0001) and compared with NPs had less comorbidity (P = 0.003), had more frequently an intra-abdominal source of sepsis (P = 0.011), less frequently a gram-positive bacteria (P = 0.036), and a shorter delay for antibiotics (P = 0.029). All patients received norepinephrine with similar maximal doses (0.66 [0.29–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in TCPs vs. 0.82 [0.41–1.4] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in NPs and 0.79 [0.48–1.7] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in UCPs; P = 0.61) and duration in the three groups (2 [2–4] days in TCPs vs. 3 [2–4] days in NPs and 3 [2–5] days in UCPs; P = 0.13). Mechanical ventilation (P = 0.11), renal replacement therapy (P = 0.19), and 28-day mortality (43% in TCPs vs. 49% in NPs, and 50% in UCPs; P = 0.77) were similar between the three groups. Cancer patients recently treated with chemotherapy had similar needs in vasopressor support during septic shock compared with untreated cancer patients and patients without malignancy. Mortality was not different in cancer and noncancer patients with septic shock.

Medical ICU, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Louis; and UFR de Médecine, University Paris-7–Paris-Diderot, Paris, France

Received 7 Aug 2012; first review completed 21 Aug 2012; accepted in final form 3 Dec 2012

Address reprint requests to David Schnell, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Réanimation Médicale, 1 Avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75010 Paris, France. E-mail:

The authors did not receive any financial support.

No potential conflicts of interest occur for any of the authors.

Authors’ contribution to the study: study’s mentoring: S.B. and É.A.; study design, data collection and analysis: É.A., S.B., E.L., and D.S.; preparation and critical reviewing of the manuscript: all authors.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Over the last decades, the increasing use of intensive curative regimens and the advances in supportive care have improved outcomes and prolonged survival of cancer patients (1–6). Indeed, this survival gain has been made at the price of a higher incidence of infectious and treatment-related complications (7, 8).

Septic shock is a life-threatening condition driven by an ongoing infectious process responsible for an uncontrolled systemic inflammatory response and ultimately resulting in acute circulatory and multiorgan failures (9). It is associated with a high mortality of about 30% to 40% (9, 10). In cancer patients, mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) may reach 50% (11, 12). However, the respective attributability of underlying malignancy and shock-related severity has never been assessed. Indeed, the disease- and therapy-driven immune deficiencies could explain increased mortality rate (13). During septic shock, observed hypotension can be determined by three distinct mechanisms: hypovolemia, cardiac dysfunction, and vascular dysfunction (14, 15). Cancer- and therapy-related conditions may exacerbate every one of these mechanisms in cancer patients: neutropenic enterocolitis by itself can induce hypovolemia; anthracyclines are a well-known cause of cardiac dysfunction through oxidative stress in cancer patients (16, 17); both chemotherapy and the illness by itself can injure endothelial cells and may promote vascular dysfunction during septic shock (18, 19). These conditions may participate to the higher severity of septic shock in cancer patients. Yet, comparison of cancer and noncancer patients with septic shock has never been reported.

We therefore conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study in patients with septic shock admitted to ICU to evaluate the impact of a recent chemotherapy on the dose and the duration of the vasopressor agents.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Study design

Adult patients admitted from January 2008 to December 2010 with septic shock to our 12-bed closed ICU in a teaching hospital were eligible for the study. Our institutional review board approved the study and waived the need for informed consent because this study was retrospective and observational. Septic shock was defined as an acute circulatory failure (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or mean blood pressure <60 mmHg combined to clinical signs of acute circulatory failure [cold extremities, skin mottling, oliguria, mental confusion]) persisting despite adequate fluid resuscitation and requiring vasopressors in patients with a proven (positive microbiological test from a sterile body fluid) or a clinically documented (an obvious infectious foci at physical examination or fever of unknown origin and no other obvious etiology than sepsis for the acute circulatory failure) infection (20). All included patients received vasopressor support. For patients with more than one ICU admission during the study period, only the first episode of septic shock was analyzed.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data collection

All data reported in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 and in Figures 1 and 2 were extracted from medical charts. Neutropenia was defined as a neutrophil count less than 500 cells/µL within 24 h after ICU admission (21). Neutropenia recovery was defined as correction of neutrophil count in the 72 h following ICU admission. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was collected at admission (22). Maximal Acute Kidney Injury grade during ICU stay was recovered as previously described (23).

Patients were separated into three groups: (a) NPs: patients with no malignancy; (b) UCPs: untreated cancer patients (patients with newly diagnosed/untreated malignancy [solid tumor or hematological malignancy]); (c) TCPs: treated cancer patients (patients who received intravenous chemotherapy in the month preceding ICU admission). This 1-month cutoff was selected arbitrarily when we designed the study to allow the inclusion of highly immunocompromised patients with or without neutropenia at ICU admission.

All patients are admitted to our ICU based on a policy of broad admission with frequent reassessments of the benefits of intensive care. Only patients with uncontrolled underlying disease or total disability are not admitted. All patients received a comprehensive medical assessment at ICU admission. Microbiological tests and radiographs were performed as deemed appropriate by the attending physician. Antibiotics were administered as soon as possible in hypotensive patients, before ICU admission whenever possible. We collected the time to antibiotic therapy that was defined as the delay from the first signs of circulatory failure to the first administration of an adapted antibiotic therapy. It generally consisted in a combination therapy of a broad-spectrum β-lactam with an aminoglycoside, and vancomycin was administered according to international guidelines (21). During the whole study period, admission and every medical decisions were not influenced by the study. No protocol of goal-directed therapy for the management of the patient with septic shock has been implemented in our ICU. Clinicians are, however, strongly encouraged to promptly administer fluids and vasopressors as needed with early reassessment (during the first hour) of their efficiency based on clinical signs of acute circulatory failure and arterial lactate measurements. All patients received lung-protective ventilation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical analysis

Quantitative parameters are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR; 25th–75th percentiles), and qualitative parameters as number and percentage. Categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test. Continuous variables were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. In case of a global statistically significant difference, post hoc pairwise comparisons between each three groups were performed with adjusted P value using Hochberg correction. Statistical analyses were performed using Statview 5.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Back to Top | Article Outline


One hundred forty-seven patients were included in the study: 45 NPs (31%), 20 UCPs (14%), and 82 TCPs (55%). The median delay between chemotherapy and ICU admission was 11 (IQR, 7–16) days. In UCPs, 12 patients (60%) had newly diagnosed malignancies, and eight (40%) had relapsing malignancies that had not been treated in the last month. The mean delay since the last chemotherapy course was 6 (IQR, 4–13) months. Study patients characteristics and comparison between the three groups are reported in Table 1.

Of the 147 patients, 91 patients (62%) had a proven infection, without difference between the three groups (67%, 60%, and 60%, respectively, in NPs, UCPs, and TCPs; P = 0.73). Fifty-six (38%) had only clinically documented infection without difference between the three groups (33%, 40%, and 40%, respectively, in NPs, UCPs, and TCPs; P = 0.73). Infectious foci, microbiological documentation, and comparison between the three groups are displayed in Table 2. In TCPs, intra-abdominal sepsis originated from neutropenic enterocolitis in 24 patients (96%) and acute cholecystitis in one patient (4%). Two patients (8%) (one with neutropenic enterocolitis and the patient with cholecystitis) needed urgent abdominal surgery for source control.

The vasopressor used was norepinephrine for all study patients. Figure 1 represents the maximal dose of norepinephrine that was similar in the three groups (0.66 [IQR, 0.29–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in TCPs vs. 0.82 [IQR, 0.41–1.4] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in NPs, and 0.79 [IQR, 0.48–1.7] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in UCPs; P = 0.61). Also, Figure 2 depicts the duration of the vasopressor support that was comparable in the three groups (2 [IQR, 2–4] days in TCPs vs. 3 [IQR, 2–4] days in NPs and 3 [IQR, 2–5] days in UCPs; P = 0.13). When considering only the 38 patients with no comorbidity (4 in NPs) or no other comorbidity than the underlying malignancy (3 in UCPs and 31 in TCPs), there was no difference in norepinephrine maximal dose (1.1 [IQR, 0.49–2.1] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in TCPs vs. 0.63 [IQR, 0.28–1.7] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in NPs and 0.48 [IQR, 0.43–0.77] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in UCPs; P = 0.41), nor in the duration of this vasopressor support (2 [IQR, 2–4] days in TCPs vs. 2 [IQR, 2–3] days in NPs and 3 [IQR, 2–8] days in UCPs; P = 0.55). Comparison of neutropenic and nonneutropenic patients found no difference in norepinephrine dose (0.72 [IQR, 0.34–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in neutropenic patients vs. 0.77 [IQR, 0.36–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1 in nonneutropenic patients; P = 0.93) nor in its duration (2 [IQR, 2–4] days in neutropenic patients vs. 3 [IQR, 2–4] days in non-neutropenic patients; P = 0.3).

Thirty-seven patients (25%) had refractory shock with similar proportion in the three groups (24%, 25%, and 26%, respectively, in NPs, UCPs, and TCPs; P = 0.99). Fifty patients (34%) had received corticosteroids in the 3 preceding months, all of them belonging to TCPs. Patients with refractory shock were not more prone than the other to have received corticosteroids in the last 3 months (24% vs. 26%; P = 0.97). Norepinephrine doses were similar between patients who had received corticosteroids and those who had not (0.66 [IQR, 0.31–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1 vs. 0.77 [IQR, 0.36–1.5] µg · kg−1 · min−1; P = 0.38).

Hemodynamic severity, the need for life-sustaining therapies, and outcomes of study patients are described in Table 3. Twenty-six (32%) of the TCPs were already receiving effective antibiotics at onset of septic shock compared with five (11%) in NPs and three (15%) in UCPs (overall P = 0.02; post hoc analyses showed a significant difference for TCPs compared with NPs; Table 4). Not surprisingly, 14 of the 26 patients already on antibiotics in TCPs had neutropenia compared with none of those in NPs and UCPs. Because this may have decreased the time to antibiotics in TCPs, we performed another analysis in the subgroup of patients with newly introduced antibiotics at the onset of septic shock. In these patients, the times to antibiotics were similar between the three groups (4 [IQR, 2–7] h in TCPs vs. 4 [IQR, 2–9] h in NPs and 4 [IQR, 3–6] h in UCPs; P = 0.81). Twenty-six (87%) of the 30 patients with limitations of active therapeutics had died at day 28. After exclusion of these patients, 39 (33%) of the 117 remaining patients had died at day 28, without difference between the three groups (12 [32%], 8 [46%], and 19 [30%] in NPs, UCPs, and TCPs, respectively; P = 0.54).

Post hoc pairwise comparisons for variables with a significant difference in the overall analysis are displayed in Table 4.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The main result of the present study is that there was no impact of a recent chemotherapy either on the intensity or in the duration of the vasopressor support in a cohort of patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Moreover, mortality during septic shock was not different between cancer and noncancer patients and between treated and untreated cancer patients.

Septic shock is a dreaded complication in cancer patients. It is associated with a high mortality rate (11, 12). Of course, disease- and therapy-driven immune deficiencies are probably the main reason for this high fatality rate (13). However, there is some evidence that both cancer and chemotherapy may have consequences enhancing the hemodynamic insults during septic shock or alter the organism’s adaptation during septic shock (16–19). We therefore hypothesize that patients with cancer and especially those recently treated with chemotherapy may need a higher dose of vasopressor for a longer duration during septic shock. Consistently with the results of a recent experimental study (24), our hypothesis was, however, not confirmed in this retrospective cohort of patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock: cancer patients recently treated with chemotherapy needed the same dose and duration of vasopressor support compared with the patients with untreated cancer and those without malignancy. Our hypothesis was based on a higher mortality rate of cancer patients with septic shock compared with those without malignancy. Actually, we did not observe such an increased mortality. This study is the first to compare outcomes in patients with septic shock with and without cancer. Patients had similar severity and percentages of organ dysfunction. The better outcome previously reported of patients with septic shock who recently received chemotherapy probably reflected the selection of these patients (25). Indeed, the preadmission triage of cancer patients who are the most likely to benefit from ICU management led to the admission of a large proportion of young people with no or few comorbidities (26).

Intensive care unit admission of cancer patients has long been considered futile. This reluctance was based on the results of studies in the 1990s showing high mortality rates (27). Both progress in organ support therapies and use of intensive curative regimens led to improved outcome and better survival of cancer patients (1–6, 11, 12). Early ICU admission to prevent further deterioration in organ dysfunctions may also partly explain the better outcome of the patients in the last years (26). Recent studies have shown that satisfactory survival rates can be achieved even in the most severely ill cancer patients (11, 12, 28–30). As a consequence, mentalities have now evolved, and we believe ICU admission must be for every cancer patient with a life span extending curative regimen who is not bedridden (26, 29, 31). To our knowledge, the most striking result of our study is that there was no increased mortality during septic shock in cancer patients, either treated or untreated, compared with those without malignancy. This encouraging finding may have several explanations. First, the preadmission triage of cancer patients who are the most likely to benefit from ICU management led to the admission of a large proportion of young people with no or few comorbidities. In these selected patients, mortality associated with septic shock may be more related to the sepsis itself and its prompt management rather than to cancer-related characteristics. This may at least partly explain the similar mortality rates compared with patients without malignancy. Second, our patients have probably benefited from the recent advances in the ICU management of septic shock made in the last decade (i.e., early antibiotics administration, early goal-directed therapy, hydrocortisone replacement therapy, and lung-protective ventilation) (20). Third, Vandijck et al. (25) reported better outcomes in patients with septic shock receiving chemotherapy, probably because of patient selection. Finally, our center is a highly experienced, high-volume cancer center with highly skilled intensivists and close collaboration between hematologists and intensivists. Undoubtedly, all these factors must have positively affected the outcome of cancer patients with septic shock in the present study. We believe these results confirm that cancer-specific characteristics are no longer determinants in the short-term outcome in ICU (1, 32, 33).

Our study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study. However, this design seemed adapted to the main objective that was only to compare vasopressor dose and duration between patients. Second, we cannot exclude that our study lacked power to detect any difference in mortality or norepinephrine dose and duration between groups, given the small sample size and the unequal group sizes. Third, we did not match patients with and without cancer and with and without recent chemotherapy. The fact that both the disease and its treatment may impact the outcome of septic shock rendered such a study design difficult. Also, the study was based on our clinical knowledge that recently treated cancer patients needed higher doses of vasopressors, and we simply tried to demonstrate this point. Fourth, the 1-month delay to define recent chemotherapy was arbitrarily chosen and may be criticized. Fifth, the preadmission triage of cancer patients who are the most likely to benefit from ICU management led to the admission of a large proportion of young people with no or few comorbidities (26). This probably has impacted our results. Finally, our results are obtained in a highly experienced, high-volume cancer center and may not be reproducible in other settings.

In the present study, we did not show an impact of a recent chemotherapy either on the intensity or on the duration of the vasopressor support in a cohort of patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Moreover, we did not find increased mortality during septic shock in cancer and noncancer patients and of treated and untreated cancer patients. The selected population and the single-center design in a highly experienced, high-volume cancer center have probably impacted our results. The observed advances in the management of septic shock in cancer patients are encouraging, and further improvement will probably arise from studies investigating specific therapeutics of septic shock in this specific subgroup of patients that is usually excluded from the studies (34, 35).

Back to Top | Article Outline


ICU — intensive care unit

NP — patient with no malignancy

TCP — treated cancer patient

UCP — untreated cancer patient

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Azoulay E, Alberti C, Bornstain C, Leleu G, Moreau D, Recher C, Chevret S, Le Gall JR, Brochard L, Schlemmer B: Improved survival in cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support: impact of noninvasive mechanical ventilatory support. Crit Care Med 29 (3): 519–525, 2001.
2. Coiffier B, Lepage E, Briere J, Herbrecht R, Tilly H, Bouabdallah R, Morel P, Van Den Neste E, Salles G, Gaulard P, et al.: CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with CHOP alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 346 (4): 235–242, 2002.
3. Darmon M, Thiery G, Ciroldi M, Porcher R, Schlemmer B, Azoulay E: Should dialysis be offered to cancer patients with acute kidney injury? Intensive Care Med 33 (5): 765–772, 2007.
4. Larche J, Azoulay E, Fieux F, Mesnard L, Moreau D, Thiery G, Darmon M, Le Gall JR, Schlemmer B: Improved survival of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med 29 (10): 1688–1695, 2003.
5. Nachman JB, Sather HN, Sensel MG, Trigg ME, Cherlow JM, Lukens JN, Wolff L, Uckun FM, Gaynon PS: Augmented post-induction therapy for children with high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia and a slow response to initial therapy. N Engl J Med 338 (23): 1663–1671, 1998.
6. Brenner H, Gondos A, Arndt V: Recent major progress in long-term cancer patient survival disclosed by modeled period analysis. J Clin Oncol 25 (22): 3274–3280, 2007.
7. Pfreundschuh M, Trumper L, Osterborg A, Pettengell R, Trneny M, Imrie K, Ma D, Gill D, Walewski J, Zinzani PL, et al.: CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab versus CHOP-like chemotherapy alone in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial by the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol 7 (5): 379–391, 2006.
8. Richardson PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, Irwin D, Stadtmauer EA, Facon T, Harousseau JL, Ben-Yehuda D, Lonial S, Goldschmidt H, et al.: Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 352 (24): 2487–2498, 2005.
9. Annane D, Bellissant E, Cavaillon JM: Septic shock. Lancet 365 (9453): 63–78, 2005.
10. Sprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, Moreno R, Singer M, Freivogel K, Weiss YG, Benbenishty J, Kalenka A, Forst H, et al.: Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med 358 (2): 111–124, 2008.
11. Zuber B, Tran TC, Aegerter P, Grimaldi D, Charpentier J, Guidet B, Mira JP, Pene F: Impact of case volume on survival of septic shock in patients with malignancies. Crit Care Med 40 (1): 55–62, 2012.
12. Legrand M, Max A, Peigne V, Mariotte E, Canet E, Debrumetz A, Lemiale V, Seguin A, Darmon M, Schlemmer B, et al.: Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med 40 (1): 43–49, 2012.
13. Dhainaut JF, Claessens YE, Janes J, Nelson DR: Underlying disorders and their impact on the host response to infection. Clin Infect Dis 41 (Suppl 7): S481–S489, 2005.
14. Levy B, Collin S, Sennoun N, Ducrocq N, Kimmoun A, Asfar P, Perez P, Meziani F: Vascular hyporesponsiveness to vasopressors in septic shock: from bench to bedside. Intensive Care Med 36 (12): 2019–2029, 2010.
15. Merx MW, Weber C: Sepsis and the heart. Circulation 116 (7): 793–802, 2007.
16. Shan K, Lincoff AM, Young JB: Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Ann Intern Med 125 (1): 47–58, 1996.
17. Yeh ET, Tong AT, Lenihan DJ, Yusuf SW, Swafford J, Champion C, Durand JB, Gibbs H, Zafarmand AA, Ewer MS: Cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy: diagnosis, pathogenesis, and management. Circulation 109 (25): 3122–3131, 2004.
18. Chow AY, Chin C, Dahl G, Rosenthal DN: Anthracyclines cause endothelial injury in pediatric cancer patients: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol 24 (6): 925–928, 2006.
19. Khorana AA, Francis CW, Culakova E, Fisher RI, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH: Thromboembolism in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 24 (3): 484–490, 2006.
20. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, Cohen J, Opal SM, Vincent JL, Ramsay G: 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Intensive Care Med 29 (4): 530–538, 2003.
21. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, Rolston KV, Young JA, Wingard JRInfectious Diseases Society of America: Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 52 (4): e56–e93, 2011.
22. Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, Sprung CL, Colardyn F, Blecher S: Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 26 (11): 1793–1800, 1998.
23. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C, Warnock DG, Levin A: Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 11 (2): R31, 2007.
24. Karvunidis T, Chvojka J, Lysak D, Sykora R, Krouzecky A, Radej J, Novak I, Matejovic M: Septic shock and chemotherapy-induced cytopenia: effects on microcirculation. Intensive Care Med 38 (8): 1336–1344, 2012.
25. Vandijck DM, Benoit DD, Depuydt PO, Offner FC, Blot SI, Van Tilborgh AK, Nollet J, Steel E, Noens LA, Decruyenaere JM: Impact of recent intravenous chemotherapy on outcome in severe sepsis and septic shock patients with hematological malignancies. Intensive Care Med 34 (5): 847–855, 2008.
26. Azoulay E, Soares M, Darmon M, Benoit D, Pastores S, Afessa B: Intensive care of the cancer patient: recent achievements and remaining challenges. Ann Intensive Care 1 (1): 5, 2011. ePub 23 March 2011.
27. Afessa B, Tefferi A, Hoagland HC, Letendre L, Peters SG: Outcome of recipients of bone marrow transplants who require intensive-care unit support. Mayo Clin Proc 67 (2): 117–122, 1992.
28. Benoit DD, Vandewoude KH, Decruyenaere JM, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA: Outcome and early prognostic indicators in patients with a hematologic malignancy admitted to the intensive care unit for a life-threatening complication. Crit Care Med 31 (1): 104–112, 2003.
29. Lecuyer L, Chevret S, Thiery G, Darmon M, Schlemmer B, Azoulay E: The ICU trial: a new admission policy for cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 35 (3): 808–814, 2007.
30. Soares M, Azoulay E: Critical care management of lung cancer patients to prolong life without prolonging dying. Intensive Care Med 35 (12): 2012–2014, 2009.
31. Soares M, Salluh JI, Spector N, Rocco JR: Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support for >24 hrs. Crit Care Med 33 (3): 520–526, 2005.
32. Soares M, Caruso P, Silva E, Teles JM, Lobo SM, Friedman G, Dal Pizzol F, Mello PV, Bozza FA, Silva UV, et al.: Characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring admission to intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 38 (1): 9–15, 2010.
33. Massion PB, Dive AM, Doyen C, Bulpa P, Jamart J, Bosly A, Installe E: Prognosis of hematologic malignancies does not predict intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med 30 (10): 2260–2270, 2002.
34. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, et al.: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med 34 (1): 17–60, 2008.
35. Pene F, Percheron S, Lemiale V, Viallon V, Claessens YE, Marque S, Charpentier J, Angus DC, Cariou A, Chiche JD, et al.: Temporal changes in management and outcome of septic shock in patients with malignancies in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 36 (3): 690–696, 2008.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 1 time(s).

What’s New in Shock? February 2013
Moldawer, LL
Shock, 39(2): 117-120.
PDF (2831) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

Cancer; chemotherapy; hematological malignancy; intensive care unit; septic shock

©2013The Shock Society