BackgroundElevated lactate has been found to be associated with a higher mortality in a diverse patient population. The aim of the study is to investigate if initial serum lactate level is independently associated with hospital mortality for critically ill patients presenting to the Emergency Department.MethodsSingle-center, retrospective study at a tertiary care hospital looking at patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) between 2014 and 2016. A total of 450 patients were included in the study. Patients were stratified to lactate levels: <2 mmol/L, 2-4 mmol/L and >4 mmol/L. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 72-h hospital mortality, ED and hospital lengths of stay.ResultsThe mean age was 64.87 ± 18.08 years in the <2 mmol/L group, 68.51 ± 18.01 years in the 2-4 mmol/L group, and 67.46 ± 17.67 years in the >4 mmol/L group. All 3 groups were comparable in terms of age, gender and comorbidities except for diabetes, with the 2-4 mmol/L and >4 mmol/L groups having a higher proportion of diabetic patients. The mean lactate level was 1.42 ± 0.38 (<2 mmol/L), 2.72 ± 0.55 (2-4 mmol/L) and 7.18 ± 3.42 (>4 mmol/L). In-hospital mortality was found to be 4 (2.7%), 18(12%) and 61(40.7%) patients in the low, intermediate and high lactate groups respectively. ED and hospital length of stay were longer for the >4 mmol/L group as compared to the other groups. While adjusting for all variables, patients with intermediate and high lactate had 7.13 (CI 95% 2.22–22.87 p = 0.001) and 29.48 (CI 95% 9.75–89.07 p = <0.001) greater odds of in-hospital mortality respectively.DiscussionOur results showed that for all patients presenting to the ED, a rising lactate value is associated with a higher mortality. This pattern was similar regardless of patients’ age, presence of infection or blood pressure at presentation.ConclusionHigher lactate values are associated with higher hospital mortalities and longer ED and hospital lengths of stays. Initial ED lactate is a useful test to risk-stratify critically ill patients presenting to the ED.
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized cancer therapy and is now the standard treatment for several different types of cancer, supported by favorable outcomes and good tolerance. However, it is linked to multiple immune manifestations, referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). These adverse events frequently affect the skin, colon, endocrine glands, lungs, and liver. The gastrointestinal system is one of the most commonly affected organ systems and is responsible for the most frequent emergency visits resulting from irAEs. However, because immune checkpoint inhibitors are a recent addition to our arsenal of cancer drugs, many health-care providers remain unfamiliar with the management of irAEs. Gastroenterologists involved in the treatment of oncology patients who have received checkpoint inhibitors are currently encountering cases of abdominal pain, diarrhea, and other nonspecific symptoms that may be challenging to manage. This article reviews the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreatic toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors and provides an approach to their diagnosis and recommended workup. It also highlights the management of irAEs according to their toxicity grading and specifically discusses the instances in which corticosteroids should be administered and/or the immune checkpoint inhibitors should be withheld.
By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.