Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the emergency department

  • Olivier Peyrony ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft

    o.peyrony@hotmail.fr

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

  • Camille Gerlier,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Paris, France

  • Imola Barla,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

  • Sami Ellouze,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

  • Léa Legay,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

  • Elie Azoulay,

    Roles Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France, Centre de Recherche en Épidémiologie et Statistiques, Université de Paris (CRESS-INSERM-UMR1153), Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics for Tumor, Respiratory, and Resuscitation Assessments (ECSTRRA) Team, Paris, France, Université de Paris, Paris, France

  • Sylvie Chevret,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Centre de Recherche en Épidémiologie et Statistiques, Université de Paris (CRESS-INSERM-UMR1153), Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics for Tumor, Respiratory, and Resuscitation Assessments (ECSTRRA) Team, Paris, France, Université de Paris, Paris, France, Biostatistics and Medical Information Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

  • Jean-Paul Fontaine

    Roles Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Emergency Department, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia in the emergency department

  • Olivier Peyrony, 
  • Camille Gerlier, 
  • Imola Barla, 
  • Sami Ellouze, 
  • Léa Legay, 
  • Elie Azoulay, 
  • Sylvie Chevret, 
  • Jean-Paul Fontaine
PLOS
x

Abstract

Introduction

The benefit of reducing the time of antibiotic initiation in the emergency department (ED) for neutropenic patients is controversial and the research on the impact of antibiotic adherence to international guidelines in the ED is scarce. We aimed to investigate the effect of antibiotic timing and appropriateness on outcomes in patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) and to assess the performance of the MASCC risk-index to risk-stratify such patients in the ED.

Methods

We prospectively identified patients with FN who presented to our ED and assessed their Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk-index. The time to parenteral antibiotic initiation and the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen according to international guidelines were retrospectively abstracted. The performance of the MASCC risk-index in predicting the absence of complication was assessed with sensitivity, specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). We investigated the effect of the time to antibiotic initiation and the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen on the outcome (ICU admission or death) by logistic regression analyses.

Results

We included 249 patients. Median age was 60 years and 67.9% had hematological malignancies, 26 (10.4%) were admitted to the ICU and 23 (9.8%) died during hospital stay. Among the 173 patients at low risk according to the MASCC risk-index, 56 (32.4%) presented at least one complication including 11 deaths. The MASCC risk-index had a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.78% and 0.43%, respectively, in predicting the absence of complication and the AUC was 0.67. The time to antibiotic initiation in the ED was not associated with the outcome after adjusting for performance status and shock-index. Conversely, an inadequate ED antibiotic regimen was associated with higher ICU admission or death during hospital stay (OR = 3.50; 95% CI = 1.49 to 8.28).

Conclusion

An inadequate ED antibiotic regimen in patients with FN was significantly associated with higher ICU admission or death during hospital stay.

Introduction

Cancer is of growing interest in the emergency literature. Three years ago, experts in the field of oncology and urgent care identified research priorities among cancer emergencies [1]. Febrile neutropenia was one of these topics of prime interest, particularly the identification of optimal treatment strategies, including the effects of the timing of initial antibiotic therapy, biomarkers and early risk-stratification tools. The benefit of reducing the time of antibiotic initiation in the emergency department (ED) for neutropenic patients is controversial [27]. Moreover, research on the impact of the antibiotic adherence to international guidelines [8, 9] in the ED is scarce [10]. Another major challenge in febrile neutropenic patients in the ED is to identify patients at low-risk of worsening and eligible to be safely discharged home with oral antibiotics. Very few tools exist to risk-stratify neutropenic patients and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk-index is one of them [11]. This tool is widely used in the oncology field and is recommended by international guidelines [8] but has shown some limits in the emergency setting [12]. With this study performed in the ED, we aimed to investigate the effect of antibiotic timing and appropriateness on outcomes in patients with febrile neutropenia and to assess the performance of the MASCC risk-index in risk-stratifying such patients in the ED.

Material and methods

Ethical aproval

The study was approved by the “Comité d’Evaluation de l’Ethique des projets de Recherche Biomédicale (CEERB) Paris Nord” (Institutional Review Board -IRB 00006477- of HUPNVS, Paris 7 University, AP-HP)—number 2019–008. All data were fully anonymized

Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify predictors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia consulting an ED. More particularly, the role of the time of antibiotic initiation and of the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen according to international guidelines was evaluated. Lastly, the performance of the MASCC risk-index in predicting the risk of complications in febrile neutropenic patients in the ED was assessed.

Patients, setting and study design

The study took place between January 2016 and December 2017 in the ED of Saint-Louis hospital (Paris, France). This university hospital has 650 beds, including 350 beds dedicated to curing malignancies. The ED receives 41,000 patients per year, including 15% of patients with malignancies. Our ED has a short hospitalization unit that is used as a step-down unit or an observation location for holding to see if patients need hospitalization. The medical ICU is a closed 12-bed unit that admits 600 patients per year, including about 130 cancer patients. ICU admission is considered when a cancer patient has at least one organ failure or presents with physiological derangements that foreshadow organ dysfunction. Early ICU admission is strongly encouraged to improve survival by preventing the development or progression of organ dysfunctions. During the study period, we prospectively identified patients with febrile neutropenia who presented to our ED and assessed their MASCC risk-index with a dedicated form. Patients were included if they were older than 15 years and had febrile neutropenia defined according to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) [8]. Patients who presented several times to our ED for the same episode of neutropenic fever were included only once, at the first presentation. Then, we retrospectively abstracted medical records to collect data that are reported in tables and figures. These data included patient age, sex, underlying malignancy, performance status (0: fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction, 1: Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature, 2: Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities up and about more than 50% of waking hours, 3: Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair more than 50% of waking hours, 4: Completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed or chair; poor performance status was defined as 3 or 4), significant comorbidities, time since the beginning of fever, prior antibiotic treatment before the ED visit, clinical findings at the ED presentation (signs of sepsis or septic shock, clinical focus of infection, diarrhea, mucositis) and vital signs at triage including shock-index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure), serum biological tests (creatinine, lactate, hemoglobin), antibiotic regimen administered in the ED and the time between first medical contact and antibiotic administration, results from microbiological investigations and classification of neutropenic fever as fever of unknown origin (FUO), clinically documented infection, and microbiologically documented infection, length of hospital stay, occurrence of complications during hospital stay or soon after hospital discharge, ICU admission during hospital stay and status (dead or alive) at hospital discharge and at day 90.

Definitions

Antibiotic appropriateness.

According to the IDSA guidelines [8], the 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia [9] and our hospital microbial ecology, the initial antibiotic regimen initiated in the ED was considered as adequate if this regimen included:

  • an association of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and a fluoroquinolone (ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin) or a monotherapy with parenteral cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone) for low-risk patients according to the MASCC risk-index;
  • a monotherapy with an antipseudomonal beta-lactam (piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepim, axepim or ceftazidime) or with imipenem-cilastatin in case of prior colonization or infection with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria for high-risk patients without sepsis or septic shock;
  • the adjunction of an aminoglycoside in case of sepsis or septic shock;
  • the adjunction of vancomycin in case of skin or central venous catheter (CVC) infection or pneumonia or prior colonization with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

The antibiotic regimen was considered as inadequate if there was:

  • no antipseudomonal beta-lactam in case of high-risk patient according to the MASCC risk-index;
  • no aminoglycoside in case of sepsis or septic shock;
  • no vancomycin in case of skin or CVC infection or mucositis or pneumonia in patients with sepsis or septic shock;
  • no imipenem-cilastatin in case of prior colonization or infection with ESBL-producing bacteria.

Complications for MASCC accuracy evaluation.

Briefly, the MASCC risk-index is a score that was validated by Klastersky et al. It ranges from 0 to 26 depending on outpatient status, age, burden of illness, hypotension, dehydration, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the type of the malignancy (solid or hematological) and history of fungal infection. A score ≥ 21 indicates the patient is at low risk of complication (<10%). Complications were defined by the authors as follows: Death during hospital stay, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or need for vasopressor support to maintain blood pressure, arterial oxygen pressure ≤ 60 mmHg while breathing on room air or need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, disseminated intravascular coagulation, confusion or altered mental state, congestive cardiac failure seen on chest x-ray and requiring treatment, bleeding severe enough to require transfusion, arrhythmia or ECG changes requiring treatment, renal failure requiring investigation and/or treatment with intravenous fluids, dialysis, or any other intervention, and other complications judged serious and clinically significant. For non-admitted patients after ED visit, any re-hospitalization for persistent fever in the next 5 days was considered as a complication. In our study, we used the same definition for complications as those listed by Klastersky et al.

Outcome for ED risk factor identification.

The outcome was a composite outcome, including ICU admission or death during hospital stay.

Statistical analysis

Results are reported as median with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables and number with percentage for binary and categorical variables. Time was used as a continuous variable. Patient characteristics were compared using the chi square test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test for continuous variables. Accuracy of the MASCC risk-index in predicting the absence of complication was assessed with a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the validated threshold of 21.

We investigated predictive factors of the outcome (i.e., ICU admission or death) using logistic regression analyses. Four patients who had received prior parenteral antibiotics in another care center were excluded. Five patients who did not receive parenteral antibiotics in the ED and were discharged with oral antibiotics were also excluded from the analysis. Univariable models were first fitted. Then, in order to consider potential confounders, we fitted multivariable models including variables with clinical significance based on literature or expert opinion, which were associated with the outcome on the basis of p-values less than 0.1 by univariable analyses. Then, we applied a backward selection procedure based on p-values but also on clinical significance, favoring variables that reflected patient severity, such as shock-index, and functional status, such as performance status. As the timing of antibiotic administration and the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen were the exposures of interest, these variables were forced into the multivariable logistic model.

Missing data were managed with multiple imputation by chained equations [13]. As recommended [14], variables included in the imputation model were those of the logistic regression prediction model (including the outcome), in addition to auxiliary covariates correlated with the missing variables; 30 datasets were imputed with 50 iterations each. The multivariable logistic regression model was applied to the 30 imputed datasets and final estimates were obtained by averaging the 30 estimates according to Rubin’s rules.

As a sensitivity analysis, we plotted the Kaplan-Meier curve of the ICU free survival (from ED presentation up to 90 days) according to the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen. In this analysis, for patients who visited the ED several times for distinct episodes of febrile neutropenia, only the first visit was included. Survival curves were compared using the log-rank test.

All p-values were two-sided, with values of 0.05 or less considered as statistically significant.

Data were analyzed with R 3.5.0 software (the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

General characteristics

During the study period, 249 patients were included. Median age was 60 years and 67.9% had hematological malignancies. Lymphoma, acute leukemia and breast tumor were the most frequent cancers. Malignancies were controlled in 70 (28.1%) of the cases and patients had good performance status in 87.3% of the cases. Before visiting the ED, fever lasted for 1 day (median) and 31.7% of patients had already begun oral antibiotics at home prescribed systematically by their oncologist or hematologist in case of fever. In most of the cases there was an association of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and a fluoroquinolone. In the ED, 60.6% of patients had clinical focus of infection, mostly pulmonary. Patients had signs of sepsis or septic shock in 17.3% of the cases and a high shock-index at triage in 37.1% of the cases (Table 1).

Parenteral antibiotics in the ED

Two hundred sixteen (86.7%) patients received an anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam, 34 (13.6%) an aminoglycoside, 24 (9.6%) vancomycin and 8 (3.2%) a carbapenem. The antibiotic regimen was inadequate for 53 (21.3%) patients. Reasons for the inadequacy of the regimen included the absence of an aminoglycoside adjunction in case of hemodynamic instability (37.8%), absence of imipenem-cilastatin in case of prior colonization or infection with ESBL-producing bacteria (32.1%), absence of vancomycin in case of hemodynamic instability and pneumonia or mucositis or skin infection (20.7%) and absence of an antipseudomonal betalactam in case of high-risk patient (9.4%). Median time of parenteral antibiotic initiation in the ED was 90 [45–150] minutes. Infection was microbiologically documented in 89 (35.7%) cases, clinically documented in 46 (18.5%) cases, and fever was of unknown origin in 114 (45.8%) cases. Details of microbiological and clinical documentations are given in the S1 Table.

Performance of the MASCC risk-index

Fig 1 shows the accuracy of the MASCC risk-index in predicting the absence of complication at different thresholds (AUC = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.74). At the conventional threshold of 21, the MASCC risk-index had a sensitivity, a specificity, and a positive and a negative predictive value of 0.78%, 0.43%, 67.6% and 56.6% respectively, with significantly fewer complications in low-risk compared to high-risk patients (p = 0.0006), Table 2. Among the 173 low-risk patients, 56 (32.4%) presented at least one complication, including 11 in-hospital deaths. Details of the complications are shown in the S2 Table.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Receiver operating characteristics curve.

Accuracy of the MASCC risk-index in predicting the absence of complication for neutropenic patients in the ED. Specificity and sensitivity are indicated for each threshold. AUC area under the curve, MASCC Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.g001

Outcome

Patients were mostly hospitalized after the ED visit (94.4%). Among these patients, 26 (10.4%) were admitted to the ICU, 23 (9.8%) died during hospital stay and 7 died in ICU (Table 3). Thus, 42 (16.9%) patients were admitted to the ICU or died during hospital stay.

The median time to parenteral antibiotics initiation in the ED was 66 [30–135] min for those who were admitted to the ICU or died during hospital stay and 92 [48–150] min for those who did not (p = 0.097), Fig 2. Results of univariable analyses are shown in the S3 Table. In the multivariable analysis (Table 4), after multiple imputation, time to antibiotic initiation in the ED was not associated with the outcome (OR = 1.00/min; 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.00, p = 0.7), after adjusting for performance status and shock-index. Conversely, an inadequate ED antibiotic regimen was associated with higher ICU admission or death during hospital stay (OR = 3.50; 95% CI = 1.49 to 8.28, p = 0.004). ICU free survival was significantly improved in patients who received an adequate antibiotic regimen in the ED (Fig 3), p = 0.00001).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Boxplot.

Time to antibiotics initiation in the ED depending on the outcome (ICU or death during hospital stay). Median and IQR were 92 [48–150] min for those who did not meet the outcome and 66 [30–135] min for those who did with no statistical difference according to the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test (p = 0.097).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.g002

thumbnail
Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier curves of the ICU free survival during 90 days from ED presentation depending on the appropriateness of the antibiotic regimen initiated in the ED.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.g003

thumbnail
Table 4. Multivariable analysis.

Variables independently associated with ICU admission or in-hospital mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.t004

Discussion

This study performed in the ED appraises outcomes and targets for improving management in patients with febrile neutropenia. The finding that inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was associated with higher ICU admission or mortality rates stresses the need to improve the skills of ED specialists treating this high-risk population. Moreover, our study did not demonstrate that timing of antibiotic initiation in the ED was associated with poor outcomes. Thus, even if initiating antibiotics promptly is recommended in emergency situations such as neutropenic fever, initiating too quickly may be harmful if this precipitance hampers the choice of the adequate antibiotics. This assumption is in line with the concerns recently published by the IDSA about the last Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines [15] where the authors stated that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated within one hour for both sepsis and septic shock [16]. Although the IDSA agreed that antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible in patients with severe infections, they were more cautious about fixing a time period and feared that this straightjacket approach impels caregivers to administer broad-spectrum antibiotics to uninfected patients with sepsis-like syndromes [15]. In the same way, the European Society of Emergency Medicine considered that completion of a sepsis bundle within 1 hour after triage which was not evidence-based may be unrealistic and potentially harmful [17].

These concerns may apply to the neutropenic patient who is considered infected when he becomes febrile, even though fever is of unknown origin most of the time. Obviously, in the absence of neutrophils, the site of infection may be lacking, and thus infection must be presumed and antibiotics started. But, the benefit of reducing the timing of antimicrobial initiation is uncertain. While some studies showed that shortening the time of antibiotic administration significantly reduced the length of hospital stay [2, 3], serious complications [4], ICU admission and 30-day mortality [7, 18], others failed to demonstrate any benefit with regard to the length of hospital stay [5] or serious complication [6]. In patients admitted to the ICU with severe sepsis or septic shock, mortality was higher when antimicrobial initiation exceeded 1 hour after the first sign of sepsis [19] or 2 hours after ICU admission [20]. Nonetheless, despite these conflicting results, the IDSA recommended initiating antibiotics within 120 minutes of presentation in patients with febrile neutropenia [8] and reduced this delay to 60 minutes in their last update [21], increasing the likelihood that broad-spectrum antibiotics will be given more frequently without collecting clinical and laboratory data, and, more importantly, without looking for prior infections or colonization with MDR pathogens.

In a study that included 25,231 patients admitted with febrile neutropenia, Wright et al. showed that among low-risk patients, use of guideline-based antibiotics reduced the risk of in-hospital mortality [10]. The adjunction of aminoglycosside in case of hemodynamic instability has been suggested, but remains controversial. Legrand et al. showed that combination antibiotic therapy which includes an aminoglycoside was associated with lower mortality in a cohort of 428 neutropenic patients admitted to the ICU for severe sepsis or septic shock [22]. Even though this association between appropriateness of initial antibiotic regimen and mortality needs to be confirmed in large prospective studies, the rationale remains strong. For instance, extending antibiotic spectrum using bactericidial drugs in this population at risk for MDR pathogens is certainly of interest [23]. Moreover, as about half the patients exhibited FUO, it is difficult to apply guidelines that may have been issued for given organ infections. Finally, as the vast majority of patients were further hospitalized, it is likely that these patients were the sickest and the challenge was more about infection control.

In our multivariable logistic regression model, a poor performance status and a high shock-index were associated with ICU admission or in-hospital death. These two variables have already been studied and associated with poor outcome in cancer patients [7, 2326] and non-cancer patients [27, 28]. If shock-index is not specific to cancer patients, its use at the ED triage is very simple and permits early recognition of patients at high risk of complication, as does the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score [29].

Klastersky et al. first validated the MASCC risk-index in 2000 and found that complications occurred in less than 10% of low-risk patients [11]. Other authors found similar results with a very low rate of complications in low-risk patients [30, 31]. It is important to underscore that these studies included mostly patients with solid malignancies and lymphomas. In other studies with a higher prevalence of hematological malignancies, complications occurred in more than 15% of these low-risk patients [32, 33]. Moreover, we believe that febrile neutropenic patients attending the ED are sicker, increasing the likelihood that complications occur, than those in oncology wards or out of the hospital when the fever starts. Therefore, the positive predictive value of the MASCC risk-index is lower in this population and false positives (complications in the low-risk group) are higher. Recently, the MASCC risk-index was studied in patients with febrile neutropenia in the emergency setting [12]. In this study, 16% of the low-risk patients had complications. Thus, thus MASCC risk-index may be inaccurate in distinguishing patients at low risk in the ED, and even more so when the prevalence of hematological malignancies is high.

Limitations

The retrospective methodology of our study certainly introduced some interpretation bias during medical record abstraction. Nevertheless, in order to avoid misinterpretations, the MASCC risk-index was prospectively collected, and we selected objective adjusting variables (shock-index instead of sepsis or septic shock, and performance status instead of cancer evolution or palliative status) and variables of interest such as time to antibiotics or type of antibiotics that were clearly identified in the ED medical records. Moreover, it has been shown that reliability is higher for studies based on explicit criteria and that focused on outcome rather than process errors [34]. Antibiotic appropriateness may be more questionable and might vary from one center to another. However, we defined it according to international guidelines and to the strength of these recommendations. The number of covariates introduced in the multivariate analysis was limited by the low prevalence of the outcome and it is possible that some potential confounders were missed in the analysis. However, the composite outcome (ICU admission and death) appeared more reliable than serious complications, the clinical significance of which may vary from one physician to another. Furthermore, a more robust methodology, such as randomizing antibiotic accurateness or time to antibiotics initiation, is obviously not possible. The results of this single-center study inevitably require external validation. Whether these results actually apply to low-volume centers remains to be determined.

Conclusions

In this study which included 249 patients with febrile neutropenia presenting to the ED, time to antibiotic initiation was not significantly associated with outcomes. However, an inadequate ED antibiotic regimen was significantly associated with higher ICU admission or death during hospital stay. Studies to improve antibiotic prescribing in ED patients with febrile neutropenia are warranted.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Neutropenic fever classification and microbiological and clinical documentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.s001

(PDF)

S2 Table. Complications in low-risk patients according to the MASCC risk-index.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.s002

(PDF)

S3 Table. Univariable analysis.

Variables associated with in -hospital ICU admission or death

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229828.s003

(PDF)

References

  1. 1. Brown J, Grudzen C, Kyriacou DN, Obermeyer Z, Quest T, Rivera D, et al. The Emergency Care of Patients with Cancer: Setting the Research Agenda. Ann Emerg Med 2016;68:706–11. pmid:26921969
  2. 2. Sammut SJ, Mazhar D. Management of febrile neutropenia in an acute oncology service. QJM 2012;105:327–36. pmid:22080099
  3. 3. Perron T, Emara M, Ahmed S. Time to antibiotics and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:162. pmid:24716604
  4. 4. Lynn JJ, Chen KF, Weng YM, Chiu TF. Risk factors associated with complications in patientswith chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in emergency department. Hematol Oncol 2013;31:189–96. pmid:23303687
  5. 5. Keng MK, Thallner EA, Elson P, Ajon C, Sekeres J, Wenzell CM, et al. Reducing Time to Antibiotic Administration for Febrile Neutropenia in the Emergency Department. J Oncol Pract 2015;11:450–5. pmid:26220930
  6. 6. Ko BS, Ahn S, Lee YS, Kim WY, Lim KS, Lee JL. Impact of time to antibiotics on outcomes of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Support Care Cancer 2015;23:2799–804. pmid:25663578
  7. 7. Daniels LM, Durani U, Barreto JN, O'Horo JC, Siddiqui MA, Park JG, et al. Impact of time to antibiotic on hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, and mortality in febrile neutropenia. Support Care Cancer 2019 “in press”.
  8. 8. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, et al. 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 2011;52:e56–e93. pmid:21258094
  9. 9. Averbuch D, Orasch C, Cordonnier C, Livermore DM, Mikulska M, Viscoli C, et al. European guidelines for empirical antibacterial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients in the era of growing resistance: summary of the 2011 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia. Haematologica 2013;98:1826–35. pmid:24323983
  10. 10. Wright JD, Neugut AI, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Wilde ET, Lu YS, et al. Deviations from guideline-based therapy for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients and their effect on outcomes. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:559–68. pmid:23460379
  11. 11. Klastersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, Boyer M, Elting L, Feld R, et al. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk index: a multinational scoring system for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3038–51. pmid:10944139
  12. 12. Coyne CJ, Le V, Brennan JJ, Castillo EM, Shatsky RA, Ferran K, et al. Application of the MASCC and CISNE Risk-Stratification Scores to Identify Low-Risk FebrileNeutropenic Patients in the Emergency Department. Ann Emerg Med 2017;69:755–64. pmid:28041827
  13. 13. Chevret S, Seaman S, Resche-Rigon M: Multiple imputation: a mature approach to dealing with missing data. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41:348–50. pmid:25578679
  14. 14. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM: Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011; 30:377–99. pmid:21225900
  15. 15. IDSA Sepsis Task Force. Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) POSITION STATEMENT: Why IDSA Did Not Endorse the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:1631–5. pmid:29182749
  16. 16. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:304–77. pmid:28101605
  17. 17. Freund Y, Khoury A, Möckel M, Karamercan M, Dodt C, Leach R, et al. European Society of Emergency Medicine position paper on the 1-hour sepsis bundle of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: expression of concern. Eur J Emerg Med 2019;26:232–3. pmid:31116120
  18. 18. Rosa RG, Goldani LZ. Cohort study of the impact of time to antibiotic administration on mortality in patients with febrile neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58:3799–803. pmid:24752269
  19. 19. Mokart D, Saillard C, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, Brun JP, Faucher M, et al. Neutropenic cancer patients with severe sepsis: need for antibiotics in the first hour. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:1173–4. pmid:24966064
  20. 20. Larche J, Azoulay E, Fieux F, Mesnard L, Moreau D, Thiery G, et al. Improved survival of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med 2003;29:1688–95. pmid:13680115
  21. 21. Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, Crews J, Gleason C, Hawley DK, et al. Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1443–53. pmid:29461916
  22. 22. Legrand M, Max A, Peigne V, Mariotte E, Canet E, Debrumetz A, et al. Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med 2012;40:43–9. pmid:21926615
  23. 23. Martinez-Nadal G, Puerta-Alcalde P, Gudiol C, Cardozo C, Albasanz-Puig A, Marco F, et al. Inappropriate Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in High-risk Neutropenic Patients With Bacteremia in the Era of Multidrug Resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2019 “in press”.
  24. 24. Peyrony O, Dumas G, Legay L, Principe A, Franchitti J, Simonetta M, et al. Central venous oxygen saturation is not predictive of early complications in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med 2019;14:281–9. pmid:30306323
  25. 25. Azoulay E, Mokart D, Pène F, Lambert J, Kouatchet A, Mayaux J, et al. Outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: prospective multicenter data from France and Belgium—a groupe de recherche respiratoire en réanimation onco-hématologique study. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2810–8. pmid:23752112
  26. 26. Azoulay E, Pène F, Darmon M, Lengliné E, Benoit D, Soares M, et al. Managing critically Ill hematology patients: Time to think differently. Blood Rev 2015;29:359–67. pmid:25998991
  27. 27. Kristensen AK, Holler JG, Hallas J, Lassen A, Shapiro NI. Is shock index a valid predictor of mortality in emergency department patients with hypertension, diabetes, high age, or receipt of β- or calcium channel blockers? Ann Emerg Med 2016;67:106–13. pmid:26144893
  28. 28. Berger T, Green J, Horeczko T, Hagar Y, Garg N, Suarez A, et al. Shock index and early recognition of sepsis in the emergency department: pilot study. West J Emerg Med 2013;14:168–74. pmid:23599863
  29. 29. Kim M, Ahn S, Kim WY, Sohn CH, Seo DW, Lee YS, et al. Predictive performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score as a screening tool for sepsis, mortality, and intensive care unit admission in patients with febrile neutropenia. Support Care Cancer 2017;25:1557–62. pmid:28062972
  30. 30. Uys A, Rapoport B, Anderson R. Febrile neutropenia: a prospective study to validate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score. Support Care Cancer 2004;12:555–60. pmid:15197637
  31. 31. Innes H, Lim SL, Hall A, Chan SY, Bhalla N, Marshall E. Management of febrile neutropenia in solid tumours and lymphomas using the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index: feasibility and safety in routine clinical practice. Support Care Cancer 2008;16:485–91. pmid:17899215
  32. 32. de Souza Viana L, Serufo JC, da Costa Rocha MO, Costa RN, Duarte RC. Performance of a modified MASCC index score for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2008;16:841–6. pmid:17960431
  33. 33. Baskaran ND, Gan GG, Adeeba K. Applying the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer risk scoring in predicting outcome of febrile neutropenia patients in a cohort of patients. Ann Hematol 2008;87:563–9. pmid:18437382
  34. 34. Lilford R, Edwards A, Girling A, Hofer T, Di Tanna GL, Petty J, et al. Inter-rater reliability of case-note audit: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:173–80. pmid:17716421