Effects of closed- versus open-system intensive care units on mortality rates in patients with cancer requiring emergent surgical intervention for acute abdominal complications: a single-center retrospective study in Korea

Jae Hoon Lee; Jee Hee Kim; Ki Ho You; Won Ho Han

doi:10.4266/acc.2024.00808

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Acute Crit Care > Volume 39(4); 2024 > Article

Original Article Surgery Effects of closed- versus open-system intensive care units on mortality rates in patients with cancer requiring emergent surgical intervention for acute abdominal complications: a single-center retrospective study in Korea: Jae Hoon Lee¹, Jee Hee Kim², Ki Ho You³, Won Ho Han¹; Acute and Critical Care 2024;39(4):554-564.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00808
Published online: November 25, 2024

¹Department of Critical Care Medicine, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

²Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Uijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University School of Medicine, Uijeongbu, Korea

³Center for Colorectal Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

Corresponding author: Won Ho Han Department of Critical Care Medicine, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea Tel: +82-31-920-1400 Fax: +82-31-920-1463 Email: 13408@ncc.re.kr

• Received: July 3, 2024 • Revised: August 29, 2024 • Accepted: September 30, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

232 Views
19 Download
1 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
KEY MESSAGES
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background
In this study, we aimed to compare the in-hospital mortality of patients with cancer who experienced acute abdominal complications that required emergent surgery in open (treatment decisions made by the primary attending physician of the patient's admission department) versus closed (treatment decisions made by intensive care unit [ICU] intensivists) ICUs.
Methods
This retrospective, single-center study enrolled patients with cancer admitted to the ICU before or after emergency surgery between November 2020 and September 2023. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore the associations between patient characteristics in the open and closed ICUs and in-hospital mortality.
Results
Among the 100 patients (open ICU, 49; closed ICU, 51), 23 died during hospitalization. The closed ICU group had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, and preoperative lactate levels and a shorter duration from diagnosis to ICU admission, surgery, and antibiotic administration than the open ICU group. Univariate analysis linked in-hospital mortality and APACHE II score, postoperative lactate levels, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and mechanical ventilation. Multivariate analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality rate increased with CRRT use and was lower in the closed ICU.
Conclusions
Compared to an open ICU, a closed ICU was an independent factor in reducing in-hospital mortality through prompt and appropriate treatment.
Keywords: acute abdomen; critical care outcomes; in-hospital mortality; intensive care units (ICUs); neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of many cancers continues to increase worldwide albeit with variations according to cancer type. Substantial progress over the past few decades in diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation has resulted in higher survival rates and an increase in age of cancer survivors [1]. However, patients with cancer are highly susceptible to sepsis due to the immunosuppressive state induced by treatment, leading to a poor prognosis. The proportion of cancer patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) treatment is increasing, ranging from 9.8% to 16.5% of total admissions [2-4]. Most cancer patients seen in the ICU (62.4%–64.2%) are admitted for postoperative care, with emergency surgery mortality rates as high as 37%, exceeding the overall cancer patient mortality rate of 30% [4]. Additionally, cancer patients experience higher rates of complications such as pneumonia and acute respiratory failure than non-cancer patients [5].

Unlike other medical departments, ICUs are characterized by a close association between structure, operational system, and patient treatment outcomes. The medical team responsible for patient care is central to this system [6]. Despite extensive research on ICU specialists’ staffing patterns and their impacts on in-hospital outcomes, there is ongoing debate regarding the optimal ICU staffing strategy [7-10]. In particular, ICUs can be categorized as open or closed based on staffing patterns. In open ICUs, primary physicians lead patient management, while in closed ICUs, ICU specialists are fully responsible for patient management, offering advantages such as better coordination and efficient resource utilization [11-14].

Few studies have investigated the impact of ICU type on the mortality of cancer patients requiring emergency surgery. We hypothesized that closed ICUs may offer a survival benefit over open ICUs in these critically ill patients. Thus, we aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of cancer patients in open versus closed ICUs after emergency surgery for acute abdominal complications and to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality to suggest potential interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethical Considerations

This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of National Cancer Center (No. NCC 2023–0319). The data access period for the manuscript was from November 15, 2023 (date of Institutional Review Board approval) to December 31, 2023. Identifiable information of individual participants was accessed during the data collection period but we refrained from accessing data after the data collection period ended. The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective nature of the study.

Study Design

This single-center, retrospective study was conducted between November 2020 and September 2023, and included 100 patients with cancer admitted to the ICU before or after emergency surgery for acute abdominal complications. Acute abdominal complications were defined as abrupt-onset abdominal pain requiring urgent intervention owing to intra-abdominal pathology [15]. Patients included in the study were those admitted to the ICU before or after surgery, extracted from among those diagnosed with acute abdominal complications confirmed by computed tomography imaging. Retrospective evaluation of the interval from computed tomography diagnosis to ICU admission, surgery, and antibiotic administration was conducted to assess the timing of these interventions. Patients with a “do-not-resuscitate” status or who discontinued life-sustaining treatment, those who did not undergo surgical treatment before or after ICU admission for acute complications, and those who underwent elective surgery after diagnosis were excluded.

In the present study, patients were categorized into closed and open ICU groups. In our institution, both open and closed ICU systems are operational. Patients were categorized into the closed ICU group if their ICU admission and management were determined by ICU specialists. Conversely, the open ICU group included patients managed primarily by the attending physicians of their respective departments with ICU specialists consulted as needed [13]. In the closed ICU group, all patients were those who were recommended to undergo surgery by an intensivist and who subsequently received postoperative care. For both closed and open ICU groups, patients admitted preoperatively typically had unstable hemodynamic indicators and required invasive interventions such as mechanical ventilation and vasopressors before surgery. Conversely, patients admitted postoperatively generally had a relatively stable hemodynamic status prior to surgery but required intensive management and monitoring in the ICU after surgery. Figure 1 displays the flow diagram of participant selection.

Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics included sex, age, comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and liver cirrhosis), cancer type (gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and other cancers), cancer stage (determined according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition) [16], operative site (lower gastrointestinal tract, upper gastrointestinal tract, and others), reasons for surgery (perforation, ischemia, bleeding, and others), disease severity (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II] score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score; APACHE II and SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours of ICU admission), use and duration of vasopressors, application and duration of mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy [CRRT], interventions excluding surgical treatment (percutaneous drainage catheter insertion, percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, embolization, bronchoscopy, and endoscopy), preoperative and postoperative lactate levels, presence of neutropenia, postoperative lactate clearance (calculated as follows: [lactate (preoperative) – lactate (postoperative)] × 100/lactate (preoperative)] [17], preoperative laboratory data (procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, albumin, and cholesterol levels), blood culture results, time from diagnosis to ICU admission, time from diagnosis to surgery, time from diagnosis to antibiotic administration, ICU stay duration, postoperative length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed to compare all variables and analyze factors in the open and closed ICU groups that influenced in-hospital mortality.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables that satisfied normality assumptions are presented as descriptive statistics, such as mean±standard deviation, and t-tests were used to compare means between groups. Data that did not meet normality assumptions are described as the median (minimum–maximum), and the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distributions of these variables between the two groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors predicting in-hospital mortality. Initially, a univariate analysis was applied to assess the significance of each variable as an independent risk factor. Subsequently, a backward-stepwise elimination method was used to select variables with P-values <0.2 to avoid overfitting bias and to optimize the Akaike information criterion. The final model included only variables with sufficiently adjusted significance for predicting in-hospital mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated for all variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to compare in-hospital mortality between open and closed ICUs. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute).

RESULTS

Characteristics of Patients with Acute Abdominal Complications Who Underwent Surgical Intervention

Among the 100 patients, 51% received treatment in a closed ICU, while 49% were treated in an open ICU. The mean age of the patients was 65 years, and 23% of patients died during hospitalization. Among them, 47.8% chose to discontinue life-sustaining measures after surgery, 43.5% succumbed to multi-organ failure due to septic shock, and 8.7% succumbed to multi-organ failure due to septic shock during surgery. The most common type of cancer was gastrointestinal, accounting for 47% of cases. Stage IV cancer was the most common cancer stage, accounting for 50% of cases. Perforation was the most common reason for surgery (70%), followed by ischemia (18%), other reasons (7%), and bleeding (5%). Mean APACHE II score was 29.7±5.7, and median SOFA score was 3 (2–6). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) ICU ICU stay duration was 2.3 days (0.7–4.5), and postoperative length of hospital stay was 23.7 days (14.5–38.5) (Table 1).

Neutropenia was present before surgery in 11% of patients, and 36% had confirmed bacteremia. Times from diagnosis to ICU admission, surgery, and antibiotic administration were 9.0 hours (2.6–14.7), 7.7 hours (4.8–14.0), and 3.6 hours (2.0–6.4), respectively. In total, 59% received vasopressors, and the duration of use was 1.5 days (0.8–2.5). Overall, 60% received mechanical ventilation therapy, with a duration of 1.2 days (0.7–2.7). Eighteen percent of patients underwent CRRT for acute renal failure, acidosis, electrolyte imbalance, and volume overload for a median duration of 3.0 days (0.5-9.1). In total, 25% of patients underwent interventions other than surgical treatment (Table 2).

Comparison of Open Versus Closed ICUs

Patients in the open ICU predominantly had gastrointestinal-type cancer (53.1%), while those in the closed ICU mostly had genitourinary cancer (52.9%). Stage IV cancer was most common in the open ICU (63.3%), whereas stage III was more prevalent in the closed ICU (39.2%). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the surgical site or reasons for surgery. Patients treated in the closed ICU had a higher proportion of high ASA scores and higher APACHE II scores. Preoperative ICU admissions were more frequent in the closed ICU than the open ICU (P=0.001). Patients in the closed ICU had longer ICU stays (3.2 days vs. 0.9 days) and postoperative hospital stays (25.6 days vs. 18.9 days). Postoperative in-hospital mortality was slightly lower in the closed ICU than the open ICU (17.7% vs. 28.6%), but this difference was not statistically significant (Table 1).

Patients in the open ICU had lower preoperative lactate and procalcitonin levels than those in the closed ICU. Postoperative lactate levels and lactate clearance were not significantly different between the open and closed ICUs. Neutropenia before surgery was less common in the open ICU, while postoperative neutropenia was more frequent in the closed ICU. Positive blood cultures before surgery were less frequent in the open ICU. Patients in the closed ICU required more ventilators and vasopressors, and had a higher rate of non-surgical interventions. However, the duration of ventilator assistance and vasopressor application did not differ significantly between the two groups. Patients in the closed ICU had shorter time intervals from diagnosis to ICU admission and diagnosis to operation than those in the open ICU (Table 2).

Univariable and Multivariable Analyses for In-Hospital Mortality

Univariable analysis was conducted to investigate factors influencing in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to the ICU before or after surgical treatment for acute abdomen. The analysis revealed that higher APACHE II score, elevated postoperative lactate level, the need for CRRT, and mechanical ventilation were factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Multivariable analysis using backward stepwise regression identified two factors that remained significantly associated with in-hospital mortality: the requirement for CRRT and treatment in a closed ICU. Although APACHE II score, postoperative lactate level, and time from diagnosis to operation showed some associations with in-hospital mortality in the multivariable analysis, the statistical significance of these associations was relatively low (Table 3, Figure 2).

Survival Analysis: Open ICU Versus Closed ICU during Postoperative Hospitalization

The closed ICU group demonstrated a higher survival rate than the open ICU group (82.4% vs. 71.4%, respectively) (Table 1). Additionally, the closed ICU group had a higher overall survival rate during the postoperative hospitalization period than the open ICU group (P=0.033) (Figure 3).

DISCUSSION

In the present study, we compared in-hospital mortality rates in patients with cancer with acute abdominal complications that required emergent abdominal surgery in open versus closed ICUs. Our results confirmed that a closed ICU is a standalone factor in reducing in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to the ICU after emergency surgery, compared with open ICUs. Recent advances in critical care, such as the development of ventilators and medical devices and application of treatment bundles led by trained specialists have transformed the treatment approach for critically ill patients [18]. In Korea, a dedicated specialist system is in operation, with specialists from various fields, including internal medicine (30%), anesthesiology (18%), neurosurgery (12%), emergency medicine (11%), thoracic surgery (11%), and general surgery (7%) all serving as intensive care specialists [19]. However, as of 2020, 44% of ICUs globally operate using an open model, and in Korea, only 41.1% of intensive care patients receive treatment from intensive care specialists [11,19].

Practical roles of intensivists are assessment of patients in the ward, providing expert advice, making timely decisions, managing access to the ICU, and holding the final decision-making authority. Sometimes, they are also tasked with determining whether to limit treatment [20]. These roles have been shown to contribute to reducing nonadherence to evidence-based care processes and decreasing the rate of complications, potentially leading to a decrease in the length of hospital stay [10]. In our study, patients in the closed ICU had higher values of severity indicators (APACHE II scores) than those in the open ICU. Despite this, time intervals from diagnosis to ICU admission, surgery, and antibiotic administration were lower in the closed ICU than open ICU. Intensivists also implement systematic treatment protocols and present expertise in invasive treatments, such as mechanical ventilation and CRRT. Our findings highlight the potential benefits of closed ICUs in improving clinical outcomes in patients undergoing emergency surgery for acute abdominal illnesses.

Previous studies have shown mixed results regarding the impact of neutropenia on postoperative outcomes [4,21]. In our study, although the proportion of patients with pre- and postoperative neutropenia was higher in the closed ICU group than the open ICU group, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups. Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed no association between neutropenia and in-hospital mortality, suggesting that surgery can be beneficial even in patients with neutropenia.

Lactate levels are widely used as an indicator of tissue hypoxia and for risk stratification in various clinical conditions, including predicting mortality [22-26]. However, in our study, although preoperative lactate levels were higher in the closed ICU group than the open ICU group, no correlation with in-hospital mortality was observed. The relatively low lactate levels in our study may explain the lack of association with mortality. This may also be due to the inclusion of patients who did not experience shock. Additionally, combining lactate levels with other variables, such as the quick SOFA score, may improve predictive accuracy, as suggested by another study [26]. Based on our study results, lactate levels alone may be insufficient to predict mortality.

Recently, CRRT has emerged as an independent factor associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CCRT is a crucial renal replacement therapy in ICUs used to maintain volume control, acid-base and electrolyte balance, and hemodynamic stability. Several previous studies have investigated the optimal timing, modality, and dosing strategies for CRRT, as approximately 11%–20% of patients with sepsis hospitalized in the ICU may require RRT owing to renal insufficiency [27-29]. Untreated acute kidney injury can increase in-hospital mortality rates, especially when CRRT is administered to patients with cancer, with reported mortality rates of 55.9%–68% [30,31]. In our study, 56% of patients treated with CRRT died, which is consistent with previous findings.

Our study showed a trend towards better outcomes with a shorter duration from diagnosis to emergency abdominal surgery, although without statistical significance. This observation is supported by previous studies that have reported that reducing the time to surgery can significantly decrease mortality and complications. For example, timely surgical intervention in gastrointestinal perforations and bowel perforations is associated with improved survival rates and fewer severe complications [32,33]. These findings emphasize the importance of minimizing delays to enhance patient outcomes after emergency abdominal surgery.

This study had some limitations that should be noted when interpreting our findings, including a small sample size, single-center design, and retrospective nature. Furthermore, there were differences in cancer type and sex between the two ICU models, which we attribute to challenges in managing patients with gynecological cancers in open ICUs. These patients are mostly referred for closed ICU management because of the difficulty of open ICU treatment of gynecological cancers, leading to disparities. Although treatment of patients in the closed ICU reduced the in-hospital mortality rate, closed ICU treatment was associated with prolonged lengths of ICU and postoperative hospital stays compared with open ICU treatment, likely due to inherent differences in baseline disease severity. Additionally, the improvement in survival rate due to treatment of severe complications may have led to increased ICU and postoperative hospitalization durations. While not statistically significant, the duration of mechanical ventilation and vasopressor use was longer in the closed ICU group (median of 3.23 days in the closed ICU group compared to 0.92 days in the open ICU group; P=0.821). Furthermore, although the overall number of patients receiving tracheostomy was low, more patients in the closed ICU group underwent this procedure than those in the open ICU group. It is important to note that disease severity scores (APACHE II and SOFA) were assessed within the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Given the retrospective design of this study, which utilized data from medical records, we were unable to capture severity scores at the time of diagnosis. This limitation may have constrained a complete evaluation of patients' initial clinical status. Finally, our study only analyzed short-term outcomes from emergency surgery for acute abdominal illness to discharge. Therefore, future multicenter, long-term studies should be performed to assess the impact of closed ICU treatment on the survival of patients with acute abdominal conditions.

Despite these limitations, we demonstrated that a closed ICU system allows more appropriate treatment after the diagnosis of patients with cancer and acute abdominal conditions that require emergency surgery, thereby reducing in-hospital mortality post-surgery. Based on these findings, there is a clear need for expanded adoption of closed ICU systems. Furthermore, the establishment of a systematic training program for ICU specialists, a fundamental element of closed ICUs, is essential to improve the outcomes of critically ill patients.

Among patients with cancer who underwent acute abdominal surgery, treatment in a closed ICU and CRRT were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality. Thus, treatment in a closed ICU is an independent factor in reducing in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients by providing timely and appropriate treatment compared with open ICUs. Nevertheless, further research, spanning multiple institutions and a longer observation period, is necessary for further comprehensive analyses of the impact of closed ICU treatment on the prognosis of patients with acute abdominal illnesses.

KEY MESSAGES

▪ Patients in the closed intensive care unit (ICU) group had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, increased use of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and preoperative lactate levels but experienced shorter times from diagnosis to ICU admission, surgery, and antibiotic administration than the open ICU group.

▪ Multivariate analysis showed that closed ICU management independently reduced in-hospital mortality, highlighting the benefits of prompt and appropriate treatment by ICU intensivists.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

FUNDING

This study was supported by a research grant from the National Cancer Center (No. NCC 2310350-1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: WHH. Data curation: KHY, JHL. Formal analysis: JHL. Methodology: KHY, JHK. Funding acquisition: WHH. Writing – original draft: JHL. Writing – review & editing: JHK, KHY, JHL. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the participant selection process. ICU: intensive care unit.

Figure 2.

Forest plot of the odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality of patients with cancer requiring emergent surgery for acute abdominal complications. Treatment in the closed intensive care unit (ICU) was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality compared with the open-type ICU (P=0.025), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) was associated with increased mortality (P=0.032). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, postoperative lactate level, and time from diagnosis to operation were not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality.

Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis based on the type of intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with cancer requiring emergent surgical intervention for acute abdominal complications. Cumulative survival rate was significantly higher in the closed ICU group than in the open ICU group (P=0.033). The log-rank test was applied to compare survival curves.

Table 1.

Demographic profiles and patient outcomes in patients with cancer requiring emergency surgery for acute abdominal complications: results of the comparative analysis between open and closed ICUs

Variable	Total (n=100)	Open ICU (n=49)	Closed ICU (n=51)	P-value
Age (yr)	65±11	65±12	66±11	0.554
Sex (female)	53 (53)	21 (42.9)	32 (62.8)	0.073
Cancer type				0.004
Gastrointestinal	47 (47.0)	26 (53.1)	21 (41.2)
Genitourinary	39 (39.0)	12 (24.5)	27 (52.9)
Others	14 (14.0)	11 (22.5)	3 (5.9)
Cancer stage				0.014
I	11 (11.0)	6 (12.2)	5 (9.8)
II	13 (13.0)	6 (12.2)	7 (13.7)
III	26 (26.0)	6 (12.2)	20 (39.2)
IV	50 (50.0)	31 (63.3)	19 (37.3)
Site of operation				1.000
Lower GI	46 (46.0)	23 (46.9)	23 (45.1)
Upper GI	49 (49.0)	24 (49.0)	25 (49.0)
Others	5 (5.0)	2 (4.1)	3 (5.9)
Reason for operation				0.522
Perforation	70 (70)	35 (71.4)	35 (68.6)
Ischemia	18 (18)	7 (14.3)	11 (21.6)
Bleeding	5 (5)	2 (4.1)	3 (5.9)
Others	7 (7)	5 (10.2)	2 (3.9)
ASA score				0.008
Low (<4)	68 (68.0)	40 (81.6)	28 (54.9)
High (≥4)	12 (12.0)	9 (18.4)	23 (45.1)
Estimated blood loss (≥1 L)	12 (12.0)	5 (10.2)	7 (13.7)	0.815
Underlying disease
Hypertension	37 (37.0)	16 (32.7)	21 (41.2)	0.499
Diabetes mellitus	29 (29.0)	15 (30.6)	14 (27.5)	0.898
COPD	6 (6.0)	3 (6.1)	3 (5.8)	1.000
Cardiovascular disease	13 (13.0)	9 (18.4)	4 (7.8)	0.205
Chronic kidney disease	4 (4.0)	2 (4.1)	2 (3.9)	1.000
Liver cirrhosis	3 (3.0)	1 (2.0)	2 (3.9)	1.000
APACHE II score	29.7±5.7	28.0±4.6	31.4±6.2	0.003
SOFA score	3 (2–6)	3 (2–5)	4 (2–7)	0.222
ICU Admission				0.001
Preoperative	49 (49.0)	15 (30.6)	34 (66.7)
Postoperative	51 (51.0)	34 (69.4)	17 (33.3)
ICU LOS (day)	2.3 (0.7–4.5)	0.9 (0.7–1.7)	3.2 (2.2–6.5)	<0.001
Postoperative LOS (day)	23.7 (14.5–38.5)	18.9 (11.8–32.9)	25.6 (21.2–41.3)	0.002
Survival discharge				0.289
Survival	77 (77.0)	35 (71.4)	42 (82.4)
Death	23 (23.0)	14 (28.6)	9 (17.7)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, number (%), or median (interquartile range).

ICU: intensive care unit; GI: Gastrointestinal; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; LOS: length of stay.

Table 2.

Laboratory metrics and clinical parameters: comparative analysis between open and closed ICUs for patients with cancer requiring emergent surgery for acute abdominal complications

Variable	Total (n=100)	Open ICU (n=49)	Closed ICU (n=51)	P-value
Laboratory data (preoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	30.8 (16.8–58.9)	21.6 (12.6–36.7)	48.1 (22.1–75.9)	0.003
Procalcitonin (ng/ml)	12.9 (2.2–43.5)	6.9 (1.1–19.9)	23.3 (3.3–62.3)	0.022
CRP (mg/dl)	16.3 (8.0–19.2)	17.2 (5.4–19.4)	14.9 (9.2–19.1)	0.609
Albumin (g/dl)	2.8±0.6	3.05±0.6	2.6±0.5	0.005
Cholesterol (mg/dl)	96.0 (67.0–131.5)	111.0 (79.5–144.5)	88.5 (60.5–115.0)	0.067
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	15 (15.0)	4 (8.2)	11 (21.6)	0.013
Blood culture positive	36 (36.0)	12 (24.5	24 (47.1	0.032
Gram-positive	19 (19.0)	7 (14.3)	12 (23.5)	0.356
Gram-negative	20 (20.0)	5 (10.2)	15 (29.4)	0.032
Laboratory data (postoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	27.5 (16.3–51.0)	23.7 (14.6–40.6)	31.0 (18.3–54.4)	0.225
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	11 (11.0)	1 (2.0)	10 (19.6)	0.013
Postoperative lactate clearance (%)	19.2±89.5	5.8±98.8	24.1±78.9	0.088
CRRT	18 (18.0)	7 (14.3)	11 (21.6)	0.492
Duration (day)	3.0 (0.5–9.1)	0.9 (0.–9.9)	3.3 (1.1–4.9)	0.821
Non-surgical intervention	25 (25.0)	7 (14.3)	18 (35.3)	0.028
Diagnosis to ICU admission (hr)	9.0 (2.6–14.7)	12.7 (8.9–23.3)	4.4 (1.6–9.1)	<0.001
Diagnosis to operation (hr)	7.7 (4.8–14.0)	10.5 (6.5–20.3)	5.8 (3.9–8.5)	<0.001
Diagnosis to antibiotics (hr)	3.6 (2.0–6.4)	4.0 (2.6–7.4)	2.5 (1.7–5.1)	0.008
Vasopressors	59 (59.0)	17 (34.7)	42 (82.4)	<0.001
Duration (day)	1.5 (0.8–2.5)	1.0 (0.3–1.8)	1.6 (0.9–2.7)	0.123
Mechanical ventilator	60 (60.0)	21 (42.9)	39 (76.5)	0.001
Duration (day)	1.2 (0.7–2.7)	0.9 (0.4–1.7)	1.4 (0.8–3.6)	0.065
Tracheostomy	3 (3.0)	1 (4.35)	2 (5.3)	1.000

Values are presented as median (interquartile range), mean (standard deviation), or number (%).

ICU: intensive care unit; CRP: C-reactive protein; ANC: absolute neutrophil count; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.

Table 3.

Results of univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses of factors associated with in-hospital mortality

Variable	Univariable		Multivariable
Variable	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age	1.008 (0.967–1.053)	0.711	-	-
Sex (male)	1.309 (0.513–3.370)	0.572	-	-
ICU admission (preoperative)	1.481 (0.582–3.862)	0.412	-	-
Type of ICU (closed)	0.536 (0.201–1.369)	0.198	0.205 (0.045–0.762)	0.025
ASA score (high ≥4)	2.444 (0.930–6.441)	0.068
APACHE II score	1.109 (1.016–1.223)	0.027	1.127 (0.995–1.288)	0.066
SOFA score	1.151 (0.982–1.351)	0.081	-	-
Laboratory data (preoperative)			-	-
Lactate (mg/dl)	1.006 (0.995–1.016)	0.290
Procalcitonin (ng/ml)	1.000 (0.992–1.055)	0.888
CRP (mg/dl)	1.004 (0.954–1.055)	0.863
Albumin (g/dl)	0.438 (0.173–1.023)	0.067
Cholesterol (mg/dl)	0.996 (0.985–1.005)	0.396
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	2.667 (0.800–8.474)	0.098
Blood culture positive	1.190 (0.444–3.082)	0.722
Gram-positive	1.250 (0.365–3.777)	0.703
Gram-negative	1.148 (0.337–3.435)	0.812
Laboratory data (postoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	1.016 (1.004–1.031)	0.016	1.012 (0.999–1.029)	0.111
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	3.287 (0.862–12.160)	0.072
Postoperative lactate clearance (%)	0.997 (0.991–1.002)	0.244	-	-
Diagnosis to ICU admission (hr)	0.991 (0.949–1.023)	0.633	-	-
Diagnosis to operation (hr)	1.021 (0.991–1.054)	0.156	1.043 (0.997–1.094)	0.059
Diagnosis to antibiotics (hr)	1.097 (1.000–1.212)	0.052	-	-
Vasopressor	1.406 (0.543–3.857)	0.491	-	-
Duration (day)	0.914 (0.488–1.294)	0.697
CRRT	6.635 (2.229–20.670)	<0.001	4.766 (1.143–21.011)	0.032
Duration (day)	0.945 (0.823–1.050)	0.323
Non-surgical intervention	1.882 (0.663–5.135)	0.221	-	-
Mechanical ventilator	3.000 (1.073–9.826)	0.048	-	-
Duration (day)	1.026 (0.835–1.190)	0.745	-	-
Tracheostomy	1.053 (0.047–11.660)	0.967	-	-
ICU LOS (day)	1.025 (0.924–1.109)	0.573	-	-
Postoperative LOS (day)	1.009 (0.987–1.028)	0.356	-	-

OR: odds ratio; ICU: intensive care unit; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; CRP: C-reactive protein; ANC: absolute neutrophil count; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy; LOS: length of stay.

REFERENCES

1. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE: 5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:23-34.Article PubMed
2. van der Zee EN, Termorshuizen F, Benoit DD, de Keizer NF, Bakker J, Kompanje EJ, et al. One-year mortality of cancer patients with an unplanned ICU admission: a cohort analysis between 2008 and 2017 in the Netherlands. J Intensive Care Med 2022;37:1165-73.Article PubMed PDF
3. Azoulay E, Schellongowski P, Darmon M, Bauer PR, Benoit D, Depuydt P, et al. The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematology patients. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:1366-82.Article PubMed PDF
4. Soares M, Caruso P, Silva E, Teles JM, Lobo SM, Friedman G, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring admission to intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med 2010;38:9-15.Article PubMed
5. Bos MM, de Keizer NF, Meynaar IA, Bakhshi-Raiez F, de Jonge E. Outcomes of cancer patients after unplanned admission to general intensive care units. Acta Oncol 2012;51:897-905.Article PubMed
6. Donovan AL, Aldrich JM, Gross AK, Barchas DM, Thornton KC, Schell-Chaple HM, et al. Interprofessional care and teamwork in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018;46:980-90.Article PubMed
7. Penoyer DA. Nurse staffing and patient outcomes in critical care: a concise review. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1521-8.Article PubMed
8. Banerjee R, Naessens JM, Seferian EG, Gajic O, Moriarty JP, Johnson MG, et al. Economic implications of nighttime attending intensivist coverage in a medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1257-62.Article PubMed PMC
9. van der Sluis FJ, Slagt C, Liebman B, Beute J, Mulder JW, Engel AF. The impact of open versus closed format ICU admission practices on the outcome of high risk surgical patients: a cohort analysis. BMC Surg 2011;11:18. Article PubMed PMC
10. Gajic O, Afessa B, Hanson AC, Krpata T, Yilmaz M, Mohamed SF, et al. Effect of 24-hour mandatory versus on-demand critical care specialist presence on quality of care and family and provider satisfaction in the intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. Crit Care Med 2008;36:36-44.Article PubMed
11. Nawaz FA, Deo N, Surani S, Maynard W, Gibbs ML, Kashyap R. Critical care practices in the world: results of the global intensive care unit need assessment survey 2020. World J Crit Care Med 2022;11:169-77.Article PubMed PMC
12. Sakr Y, Moreira CL, Rhodes A, Ferguson ND, Kleinpell R, Pickkers P, et al. The impact of hospital and ICU organizational factors on outcome in critically ill patients: results from the Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care study. Crit Care Med 2015;43:519-26.Article PubMed
13. Yang Q, Du JL, Shao F. Mortality rate and other clinical features observed in Open vs closed format intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e16261.Article PubMed PMC
14. Hackner D, Shufelt CL, Balfe DD, Lewis MI, Elsayegh A, Braunstein GD, et al. Do faculty intensivists have better outcomes when caring for patients directly in a closed ICU versus consulting in an open ICU? Hosp Pract (1995) 2009;37:40-50.Article PubMed
15. Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Tazuma S, Furukawa A, Nishii O, Shigematsu K, et al. The practice guidelines for primary care of acute abdomen 2015. Jpn J Radiol 2016;34:80-115.Article PubMed PDF
16. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. Springer. 2017.
17. Gharipour A, Razavi R, Gharipour M, Modarres R, Nezafati P, Mirkheshti N. The incidence and outcome of severe hyperlactatemia in critically ill patients. Intern Emerg Med 2021;16:115-23.Article PubMed PDF
18. Kelly FE, Fong K, Hirsch N, Nolan JP. Intensive care medicine is 60 years old: the history and future of the intensive care unit. Clin Med (Lond) 2014;14:376-9.Article PubMed PMC
19. Oh TK, Song IA. Trained intensivist coverage and survival outcomes in critically ill patients: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea. Ann Intensive Care 2023;13:4. Article PubMed PMC PDF
20. Cullati S, Hudelson P, Ricou B, Nendaz M, Perneger TV, Escher M. Internists' and intensivists' roles in intensive care admission decisions: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:620. Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Coccolini F, Improta M, Sartelli M, Rasa K, Sawyer R, Coimbra R, et al. Acute abdomen in the immunocompromised patient: WSES, SIS-E, WSIS, AAST, and GAIS guidelines. World J Emerg Surg 2021;16:40. Article PubMed PMC PDF
22. Kang MK, Oh SY, Lee H, Ryu HG. Pre and postoperative lactate levels and lactate clearance in predicting in-hospital mortality after surgery for gastrointestinal perforation. BMC Surg 2022;22:93. Article PubMed PMC PDF
23. Oedorf K, Day DE, Lior Y, Novack V, Sanchez LD, Wolfe RE, et al. Serum lactate predicts adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with and without infection. West J Emerg Med 2017;18:258-66.Article PubMed
24. Spiegelberg J, Lederer AK, Claus S, Runkel M, Utzolino S, Fichtner-Feigl S, et al. Severe hyperlactatemia in unselected surgical patients: retrospective analysis of prognostic outcome factors. BMC Surg 2022;22:312. Article PubMed PMC PDF
25. Freire Jorge P, Wieringa N, de Felice E, van der Horst IC, Oude Lansink A, Nijsten MW. The association of early combined lactate and glucose levels with subsequent renal and liver dysfunction and hospital mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2017;21:218. Article PubMed PMC
26. Wiggans MG, Starkie T, Shahtahmassebi G, Woolley T, Birt D, Erasmus P, et al. Serum arterial lactate concentration predicts mortality and organ dysfunction following liver resection. Perioper Med (Lond) 2013;2:21. Article PubMed PMC PDF
27. Jung YT, Jeon J, Park JY, Kim MJ, Lee SH, Lee JG. Addition of lactic acid levels improves the accuracy of quick sequential organ failure assessment in predicting mortality in surgical patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg 2018;13:14. Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. White KC, Serpa-Neto A, Hurford R, Clement P, Laupland KB, See E, et al. Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit: incidence, patient characteristics, timing, trajectory, treatment, and associated outcomes. A multicenter, observational study. Intensive Care Med 2023;49:1079-89.Article PubMed PMC
29. Wang Z, Zhang L, Xu F, Han D, Lyu J. The association between continuous renal replacement therapy as treatment for sepsis-associated acute kidney injury and trend of lactate trajectory as risk factor of 28-day mortality in intensive care units. BMC Emerg Med 2022;22:32. Article PubMed PMC PDF
30. Kim DW, Jang GS, Jung KS, Jung HJ, Kim HJ, Rhee H, et al. Hospital mortality and prognostic factors in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and cancer undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2022;41:717-29.Article PubMed PMC PDF
31. Druml W, Zajic P, Schellongowski P, Fellinger T, Metnitz B, Posch M, et al. Association of acute kidney injury receiving kidney replacement therapy with prognosis of critically ill patients with and without cancer: a retrospective study. Crit Care Med 2021;49:1932-42.Article PubMed
32. Lavanchy JL, Dubuis JB, Osterwalder A, Winterhalder S, Haltmeier T, Candinas D, et al. Impact of inter-hospital transfer on outcomes in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery: a tertiary referral center's perspective. World J Surg 2021;45:2703-11.Article PubMed PMC PDF
33. Kokotovic D, Jensen TK. Acute abdominal pain and emergency laparotomy: bundles of care to improve patient outcomes. Br J Surg 2023;110:1594-6.Article PubMed PDF

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The efficacy of intensivist-led closed-system intensive care units in improving outcomes for cancer patients requiring emergent surgical intervention
Eun Young Kim
Acute and Critical Care.2024; 39(4): 640. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Effects of closed- versus open-system intensive care units on mortality rates in patients with cancer requiring emergent surgical intervention for acute abdominal complications: a single-center retrospective study in Korea

Acute Crit Care. 2024;39(4):554-564. Published online November 25, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00808

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Figure 1. Flowchart of the participant selection process. ICU: intensive care unit.

Figure 2. Forest plot of the odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality of patients with cancer requiring emergent surgery for acute abdominal complications. Treatment in the closed intensive care unit (ICU) was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality compared with the open-type ICU (P=0.025), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) was associated with increased mortality (P=0.032). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, postoperative lactate level, and time from diagnosis to operation were not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality.

Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis based on the type of intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with cancer requiring emergent surgical intervention for acute abdominal complications. Cumulative survival rate was significantly higher in the closed ICU group than in the open ICU group (P=0.033). The log-rank test was applied to compare survival curves.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Variable	Total (n=100)	Open ICU (n=49)	Closed ICU (n=51)	P-value
Age (yr)	65±11	65±12	66±11	0.554
Sex (female)	53 (53)	21 (42.9)	32 (62.8)	0.073
Cancer type				0.004
Gastrointestinal	47 (47.0)	26 (53.1)	21 (41.2)
Genitourinary	39 (39.0)	12 (24.5)	27 (52.9)
Others	14 (14.0)	11 (22.5)	3 (5.9)
Cancer stage				0.014
I	11 (11.0)	6 (12.2)	5 (9.8)
II	13 (13.0)	6 (12.2)	7 (13.7)
III	26 (26.0)	6 (12.2)	20 (39.2)
IV	50 (50.0)	31 (63.3)	19 (37.3)
Site of operation				1.000
Lower GI	46 (46.0)	23 (46.9)	23 (45.1)
Upper GI	49 (49.0)	24 (49.0)	25 (49.0)
Others	5 (5.0)	2 (4.1)	3 (5.9)
Reason for operation				0.522
Perforation	70 (70)	35 (71.4)	35 (68.6)
Ischemia	18 (18)	7 (14.3)	11 (21.6)
Bleeding	5 (5)	2 (4.1)	3 (5.9)
Others	7 (7)	5 (10.2)	2 (3.9)
ASA score				0.008
Low (<4)	68 (68.0)	40 (81.6)	28 (54.9)
High (≥4)	12 (12.0)	9 (18.4)	23 (45.1)
Estimated blood loss (≥1 L)	12 (12.0)	5 (10.2)	7 (13.7)	0.815
Underlying disease
Hypertension	37 (37.0)	16 (32.7)	21 (41.2)	0.499
Diabetes mellitus	29 (29.0)	15 (30.6)	14 (27.5)	0.898
COPD	6 (6.0)	3 (6.1)	3 (5.8)	1.000
Cardiovascular disease	13 (13.0)	9 (18.4)	4 (7.8)	0.205
Chronic kidney disease	4 (4.0)	2 (4.1)	2 (3.9)	1.000
Liver cirrhosis	3 (3.0)	1 (2.0)	2 (3.9)	1.000
APACHE II score	29.7±5.7	28.0±4.6	31.4±6.2	0.003
SOFA score	3 (2–6)	3 (2–5)	4 (2–7)	0.222
ICU Admission				0.001
Preoperative	49 (49.0)	15 (30.6)	34 (66.7)
Postoperative	51 (51.0)	34 (69.4)	17 (33.3)
ICU LOS (day)	2.3 (0.7–4.5)	0.9 (0.7–1.7)	3.2 (2.2–6.5)	<0.001
Postoperative LOS (day)	23.7 (14.5–38.5)	18.9 (11.8–32.9)	25.6 (21.2–41.3)	0.002
Survival discharge				0.289
Survival	77 (77.0)	35 (71.4)	42 (82.4)
Death	23 (23.0)	14 (28.6)	9 (17.7)

Variable	Total (n=100)	Open ICU (n=49)	Closed ICU (n=51)	P-value
Laboratory data (preoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	30.8 (16.8–58.9)	21.6 (12.6–36.7)	48.1 (22.1–75.9)	0.003
Procalcitonin (ng/ml)	12.9 (2.2–43.5)	6.9 (1.1–19.9)	23.3 (3.3–62.3)	0.022
CRP (mg/dl)	16.3 (8.0–19.2)	17.2 (5.4–19.4)	14.9 (9.2–19.1)	0.609
Albumin (g/dl)	2.8±0.6	3.05±0.6	2.6±0.5	0.005
Cholesterol (mg/dl)	96.0 (67.0–131.5)	111.0 (79.5–144.5)	88.5 (60.5–115.0)	0.067
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	15 (15.0)	4 (8.2)	11 (21.6)	0.013
Blood culture positive	36 (36.0)	12 (24.5	24 (47.1	0.032
Gram-positive	19 (19.0)	7 (14.3)	12 (23.5)	0.356
Gram-negative	20 (20.0)	5 (10.2)	15 (29.4)	0.032
Laboratory data (postoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	27.5 (16.3–51.0)	23.7 (14.6–40.6)	31.0 (18.3–54.4)	0.225
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	11 (11.0)	1 (2.0)	10 (19.6)	0.013
Postoperative lactate clearance (%)	19.2±89.5	5.8±98.8	24.1±78.9	0.088
CRRT	18 (18.0)	7 (14.3)	11 (21.6)	0.492
Duration (day)	3.0 (0.5–9.1)	0.9 (0.–9.9)	3.3 (1.1–4.9)	0.821
Non-surgical intervention	25 (25.0)	7 (14.3)	18 (35.3)	0.028
Diagnosis to ICU admission (hr)	9.0 (2.6–14.7)	12.7 (8.9–23.3)	4.4 (1.6–9.1)	<0.001
Diagnosis to operation (hr)	7.7 (4.8–14.0)	10.5 (6.5–20.3)	5.8 (3.9–8.5)	<0.001
Diagnosis to antibiotics (hr)	3.6 (2.0–6.4)	4.0 (2.6–7.4)	2.5 (1.7–5.1)	0.008
Vasopressors	59 (59.0)	17 (34.7)	42 (82.4)	<0.001
Duration (day)	1.5 (0.8–2.5)	1.0 (0.3–1.8)	1.6 (0.9–2.7)	0.123
Mechanical ventilator	60 (60.0)	21 (42.9)	39 (76.5)	0.001
Duration (day)	1.2 (0.7–2.7)	0.9 (0.4–1.7)	1.4 (0.8–3.6)	0.065
Tracheostomy	3 (3.0)	1 (4.35)	2 (5.3)	1.000

Variable	Univariable		Multivariable
Variable	OR (95% CI)	P-value	OR (95% CI)	P-value
Age	1.008 (0.967–1.053)	0.711	-	-
Sex (male)	1.309 (0.513–3.370)	0.572	-	-
ICU admission (preoperative)	1.481 (0.582–3.862)	0.412	-	-
Type of ICU (closed)	0.536 (0.201–1.369)	0.198	0.205 (0.045–0.762)	0.025
ASA score (high ≥4)	2.444 (0.930–6.441)	0.068
APACHE II score	1.109 (1.016–1.223)	0.027	1.127 (0.995–1.288)	0.066
SOFA score	1.151 (0.982–1.351)	0.081	-	-
Laboratory data (preoperative)			-	-
Lactate (mg/dl)	1.006 (0.995–1.016)	0.290
Procalcitonin (ng/ml)	1.000 (0.992–1.055)	0.888
CRP (mg/dl)	1.004 (0.954–1.055)	0.863
Albumin (g/dl)	0.438 (0.173–1.023)	0.067
Cholesterol (mg/dl)	0.996 (0.985–1.005)	0.396
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	2.667 (0.800–8.474)	0.098
Blood culture positive	1.190 (0.444–3.082)	0.722
Gram-positive	1.250 (0.365–3.777)	0.703
Gram-negative	1.148 (0.337–3.435)	0.812
Laboratory data (postoperative)
Lactate (mg/dl)	1.016 (1.004–1.031)	0.016	1.012 (0.999–1.029)	0.111
Neutropenia (ANC <1,500/ul)	3.287 (0.862–12.160)	0.072
Postoperative lactate clearance (%)	0.997 (0.991–1.002)	0.244	-	-
Diagnosis to ICU admission (hr)	0.991 (0.949–1.023)	0.633	-	-
Diagnosis to operation (hr)	1.021 (0.991–1.054)	0.156	1.043 (0.997–1.094)	0.059
Diagnosis to antibiotics (hr)	1.097 (1.000–1.212)	0.052	-	-
Vasopressor	1.406 (0.543–3.857)	0.491	-	-
Duration (day)	0.914 (0.488–1.294)	0.697
CRRT	6.635 (2.229–20.670)	<0.001	4.766 (1.143–21.011)	0.032
Duration (day)	0.945 (0.823–1.050)	0.323
Non-surgical intervention	1.882 (0.663–5.135)	0.221	-	-
Mechanical ventilator	3.000 (1.073–9.826)	0.048	-	-
Duration (day)	1.026 (0.835–1.190)	0.745	-	-
Tracheostomy	1.053 (0.047–11.660)	0.967	-	-
ICU LOS (day)	1.025 (0.924–1.109)	0.573	-	-
Postoperative LOS (day)	1.009 (0.987–1.028)	0.356	-	-

Table 1. Demographic profiles and patient outcomes in patients with cancer requiring emergency surgery for acute abdominal complications: results of the comparative analysis between open and closed ICUs

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation, number (%), or median (interquartile range).

Table 2. Laboratory metrics and clinical parameters: comparative analysis between open and closed ICUs for patients with cancer requiring emergent surgery for acute abdominal complications

Values are presented as median (interquartile range), mean (standard deviation), or number (%).

ICU: intensive care unit; CRP: C-reactive protein; ANC: absolute neutrophil count; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.

Table 3. Results of univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses of factors associated with in-hospital mortality