Dataset Information

Frequency and characteristics of advanced cancer patients with COVID + ve status among inpatient supportive care consults during the pandemic: experience from a tertiary cancer center.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There is limited literature available regards the frequency and characteristics of COVID-19 + ve status among advanced cancer patients referred to an inpatient supportive care consultation(PC) at a tertiary cancer center. Our study aimed to determine the frequency and characteristics of COVID-19 + ve cancer patients seen by PC.

Methods

Advanced cancer patients seen as a consult by PC between June 15 and September 25, 2020, at MD Anderson Cancer Center were eligible for the study. We evaluated the patient demographics, clinical characteristics including symptoms(ESAS), delirium(MDAS), COVID + status prior to, and after PC referral(converters), and type of PC delivery(in person or virtual care).

Results

Sixty-six out of 1380 (4.8%) PC consults were COVID-19 + ve: 42 prior to PC (79%), and 14 (21%) were COVID-19 + ve after the PC (converters). COVID-19 + PC patients had lower depression (P = .035), spiritual distress (P = .003), and were more seen frequently virtually (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between COVID-19-ve patients and converters. Converters had higher symptom distress (P = 0.007), lower delirium (P = 0.014), and were referred earlier (P = .011) compared to COVID + PC patients diagnosed prior to PC consult. Overall, patients seen virtually compared in-person by PC were younger (P = 0.02) and had lower delirium (P = 0.007).

Conclusion

The burden of COVID-19 + status among patients referred to PC was low. COVID-19 + ve patients had more frequent virtual visits, lower depression, and spiritual distress scores. Patient seen virtually were significantly younger and had lower delirium. During a new pandemic, universal virtual care might be emphasized especially at initial encounters after admission and further research is needed on the potential efficacy of this intervention.

SUBMITTER: Yennurajalingam S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8505221 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPalliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center.MethodsWe retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481-15).ResultsDuring the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n?=?203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p?<?0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p?=?0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range - IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9-3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p?<?0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n?=?25) of sedated patients.ConclusionsPS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.