Open Access

Febrile neutropenia in French emergency departments: results of a prospective multicentre survey

  • Stéphanie André1, 2,
  • Pierre Taboulet3,
  • Caroline Elie2, 4,
  • Noël Milpied5,
  • Michel Nahon2, 6,
  • Gérald Kierzek2, 7,
  • Mariève Billemont1,
  • Franck Perruche1,
  • Sandrine Charpentier8,
  • Hélène Clément1,
  • Jean-Louis Pourriat1, 2, 7 and
  • Yann-Erick Claessens1, 2, 7Email author
Critical Care201014:R68

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8972

Received: 6 November 2009

Accepted: 19 April 2010

Published: 19 April 2010

Abstract

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is common in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic therapy. The procedures to treat FN are well established in oncology, but it is unclear whether management is adequate in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

This prospective, multicentre, observational study was carried out in 47 French EDs for 6 months. Patients were adults presenting at the ED with FN after myelotoxic treatment for cancer. Severity of infection was defined according to Bone criteria for severe sepsis and septic shock (SS/SSh) and risk was determined according to Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. The end point was the implementation of guidelines. Management of patients with SS/SSh required: (i) adequate intravenous (IV) antimicrobial therapy for the first 90 min (broad-spectrum beta-lactam with or without an aminoglycoside); (ii) fluid challenge (500 mL); (iii) lactate measurement; (iv) at least one blood culture; and (v) hospitalization. Management of patients without SS/SSh required: (1) no initiation of granulocyte - cell stimulating factor (G-CSF); (2) adequate IV antimicrobial therapy (broad-spectrum beta-lactam) and hospitalization if the patient was high-risk according to MASCC criteria; (3) adequate oral antimicrobial therapy (quinolone or amoxicillin/clavulanate or cephalosporin) and hospital discharge if the patient was low-risk.

Results

198 patients were enrolled; 89 patients had SS/SSh, of whom 19 received adequate antimicrobial therapy within 90 min and 42 received appropriate fluid challenge. Blood cultures were obtained from 87 and lactate concentration was measured in 29. Overall, only 6 (7%) patients with SS/SSh received adequate management. Among 108 patients without SS/SSh, 38 (35%) were high-risk and 70 (65%) low-risk. In the high-risk group, adequate antimicrobial therapy was given to 31 patients, G-CSF was initiated in 4 and 35 were hospitalized. In the low-risk group, 4 patients received adequate oral antimicrobial therapy, IV antimicrobial therapy was prescribed in 59, G-CSF was initiated in 12 and six patients were discharged. Adequate management was given to 26/38 (68%) high-risk and 1/70 low-risk patients. Factors associated with adequate management were absence of SS/SSh (P = 0.0009) and high-risk according to MASCC criteria (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In this French sample of cancer patients presenting to the ED with FN, management was often inadequate and severity was under-evaluated in the critically ill.

Introduction

The occurrence of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients should lead to cautious severity assessment in order to provide appropriate management and therefore improve prognosis [1]. Despite specific recommendations, febrile neutropenia is still associated with high morbidity and mortality [2] and elevated health-related costs. The underlying conditions associated with febrile neutropenia make patients more vulnerable. Cancer itself compromises survival [3], impairs innate and adaptative immunity, and patients have a higher chance of developing a nosocomial infection [4]. Therefore, severe infections are common in this population. To help physicians safely decide the site of care for patients with febrile neutropenia, criteria have been determined [5], and sensitive scoring systems have been validated to limit patients' misclassification [6]. In this setting, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria were developed to help physicians make decisions about the site of care and overall management of patients with febrile neutropenia. This score mainly relies on subjective criteria such as the evaluation of clinical symptoms and hydration state.

Sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were defined 15 years ago as a continuum of increasing severity of the host response to the pathogen [3] closely related to predisposition, organ failure and systemic response, and to the microorganism and site of infection [7]. Management of septic patients has significantly improved over the past decade as a result of consensus guidelines published by 11 scientific societies [810]. These recommendations have been widely disseminated, but detecting patients at risk remains a daily challenge in emergency medicine.

The presence of cancer may impair the prognosis of acute patients [8], including septic patients [11] visiting the emergency department (ED) [12]. Reports on the management of febrile neutropenia in EDs are scarce, retrospective and mainly single centre studies. Interestingly, a French survey based on declarative questionnaires reported that 1 out of 31 cancer teams involved emergency physicians in their organizational strategy to manage patients with febrile neutropenia [13]. As the incidence of sepsis has increased in the general population [14], more patients visit the ED for this reason [15] and this had led to a dramatic increase in number of cancer patients in this setting [16].

This study was carried out to describe the management of patients with febrile neutropenia in EDs and to determine how management complies with recommendations. The secondary objective was to determine the factors associated with adequate management.

Materials and methods

Study design and ethics

This was a prospective multicentre study carried out in 47 French EDs over a six-month period (4 February to 4 August, 2008). The inform consent from patients was required for this study. The study protocol and patient information procedures were approved by the institutional review board for the protection of human subjects of the Cochin Port-Royal (Paris, France).

Recruitment of patients

Patients were included if they were adults (>18 years old) who presented at a participating ED with febrile neutropenia after myelotoxic treatment for cancer. Delay between last cytotoxic treatment and occurrence of febrile neutropenia was not pre-specified to enter the study. Definition of febrile neutropenia consisted of a white blood cell count less than 1,000/μL (or neutrophils <500/μL), with a core temperature above 8.3°C (or >38°C on two consecutive occasions). Patients who presented with febrile neutropenia in another setting or who refused to participate were not included in the study.

Procedure and data collection

An investigator (SA) contacted by phone the team leader of each participating centre to describe the study and explain criteria for eligibility. Each team leader gave the information about this study to the ED team. The physician on duty invited eligible patients to participate and implemented the electronic form. As this was an observation study, data were collected on the basis of usual practices.

The characteristics of each participating centre were recorded, with special reference to the management of febrile neutropenia. Data collected for each patient included demographic characteristics, physical data and medical history focusing on cancer and outcome (discharge, admission, admission to an ICU, death).

Study objectives

The primary objective was to describe the management of patients with febrile neutropenia in EDs and to determine whether management complies with recommendations. The secondary objective was to determine the factors associated with adequate management.

Evaluation criteria in the guidelines were identified to accurately assess the primary end points. Patients with febrile neutropenia were divided into two groups: those with and those without severe sepsis or septic shock (SS/SSh).

Patients with SS/SSh were selected according to the following criteria [9, 17]: blood lactate more than 4 mmol/L, or low blood pressure before fluid challenge (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or 40 mmHg below usual systolic blood pressure), or at least one organ dysfunction (pulse oxymetry [SpO2] <95% with fraction of inspired oxygen >0.5, blood creatinine >176 μmol/L or oliguria, international normalised ratio >2, bilirubinemia >78 μmol/L, Glasgow Coma Scale <15). Thrombopenia was excluded from the criteria because of the potential effect of chemotherapy on platelet counts. Patients without SS/SSh were identified as high risk or low risk according to the MASCC classification [6] (Table 1). Of note, data that allowed determination of MASCC and presence of SS/SSh were collected at the bedside by attending physicians. Implementation of the database was not intended to help physicians detecting the severity of a patient's condition.
Table 1

Classification according to the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer(MASCC) [6]

Variables

Points

(Low-risk if score >20)

Burden of illness

 

   Age < 60 years

2

   Outpatient status

3

   No chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

4

   No previous fungal infection

4

Clinical state at admission

 

   No or mild symptoms

5

   Moderate symptoms

3

   Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg

5

   No dehydration needing perfusion

3

Implementation of the following guidelines was assessed. Management of patients with SS/SSh required for the 90 first minutes [9, 10]: (i) a dose regimen of adequate (broad-spectrum) intravenous antimicrobial therapy; (ii) fluid challenge (500 mL) if mean arterial blood pressure was less than 65 mmHg; (iii) lactate measurement; (iv) at least one blood culture; and (v) hospitalization. Management of patients without SS/SSh who were high risk according to MASCC criteria required [1820]: (i) adequate intravenous antimicrobial agent (broad-spectrum beta-lactam with or without an aminoglycoside); (ii) no initiation of granulocyte-cell stimulating factor (G-CSF); and (iii) hospitalization. Management of patients without SS/SSh who were low-risk according to MASCC criteria required [1820]: (i) adequate oral antimicrobial agent (quinolone or amoxicillin/clavulanate or cephalosporin); (ii) no initiation of G-CSF; and (iii) hospital discharge.

Patients were divided into two groups; those managed according to recommendations and those who were not, irrespective of initial severity. The two populations were compared to determine the factors associated with adequate management.

Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables are described as the mean ± standard deviation or median (range) and quantitative variables as number and percent. The adequacy of management according to recommendations was determined for the two sub-groups using Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test for qualitative variables and the Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for quantitative variables. All tests were two-sided. A P value of less than 5% were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out using R software (Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1090 Vienna, Austria).

Results

Emergency departments

The 47 participating EDs were distributed across France and were representative of each metropolitan region. Thirteen (28%) centres were tertiary teaching hospitals, six (13%) were in the Paris area and 29 (60%) had a dedicated unit for cancer patients. The median number of hospital beds was 500 (range, 150 to 2900) and the median number of ED visits was 17,679 during the six months of the study (range, 3,000-39,045). A written procedure for the management of febrile neutropenia was present in 19 EDs (40%) and was formalised with oncologists/haematologists in 15 (32%). This procedure referred to protective isolation in 10 (21%), antimicrobial agents in 16 (34%) and growth factors in 5 (11%) EDs.

Study participants and febrile neutropenia

Among the 777,876 patients who visited the EDs during the study period, 198 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (mean age 61 ± 14 years, 116 (60%) male) corresponding to one case every 3,930 visits; all these patients accepted to participate (Figure 1). Thirteen centres included five patients or more (Tables 2 and 3).
Figure 1

Flow chart of patients included in the study.

Table 2

Characteristics of participating centres

Variables

Number (%)

Mean (range)

Participating centres:

47

   Tertiary teaching hospitals

13 (27%)

   General community hospitals

35 (74%)

Number of beds in hospital

500 (150-2,900)

Number of ED visits during the study period

17,679 (3,000-39,045)

Number of included patients:

198

   Tertiary teaching hospitals

111 (56%)

   General community hospitals

87 (44%)

Number of centres with ≥ 5 patients

13 (27%)

Written procedure for the management of febrile neutropenia

19 (40%)

Formalised with oncologists/haematologists

 

   Protective isolation

15 (79%)

   Antimicrobial agents

10 (53%)

   Prescription of G-CSF

16 (84%)

ED, emergency department; G-CSF, granulocyte-cell stimulating factor.

Table 3

Details of location, activity, inclusions and dedicated unit for cancer patients in participating centres

Hospital centres

Number of inclusions

Number of ED visits during study period

Presence of cancer unit

Management procedure for febrile neutropenia

(01) Ain: CH Bourg-en-Bresse

2

15,500

Yes

Yes

(03) Allier: CH Vichy

1

15,700

No

No

(06) Alpes Maritimes: CHU Nice

2

34,300

Yes

No

(07) Ardèche: CH Annonay

2

11,000

No

Yes

(07) Ardèche: CH Aubenas

1

ND

Yes

No

(09) Ariège: CH Val d'Ariège

1

13,200

No

No

(13) Bouches-du-Rhône: CH Martigues

3

16,991

No

No

(15) Cantal: CH Aurillac

2

12,444

Yes

No

(15) Cantal: CH Mauriac

1

3,000

No

No

(17) Charente-Maritime: CH La Rochelle

3

21,500

No

No

(17) Charente-Maritime: CH Rochefort sur mer

3

10,500

ND

ND

(19) Corrèze: CH Tulles

1

9,000

No

No

(22) Côtes d'Armor: CH St Brieuc

2

22,500

Yes

Yes

(24) Dordogne: CH Périgueux

2

14,900

No

Yes

(26) Drôme: CH Valence

5

19,130

Yes

Yes

(28) Eure-et-Loire: CH Chartres

2

19,336

Yes

No

(35) Ile-et-Vilaine: CH St Malo

1

18,000

Yes

Yes

(36) Indre: CH Le Blanc

1

4,570

ND

ND

(37) Indre-et-Loire: CH Chinon

3

6,857

Yes

Yes

(37) Indre-et-Loire: CHU Tours

8

24,000

Yes

Yes

(38) Isère: CHU Grenoble

5

35,600

Yes

Yes

(40) Landes: CH Mont-de-Marsan

5

ND

Yes

No

(42) Loire: CHU St Etienne

13

20,232

Yes

No

(44) Loire Atlantique: CH Chateaubriant

1

7,000

No

No

(45) Loiret: CH Montargis

4

15,222

Yes

Yes

(45) Loiret: CH Orléans

6

19,500

Yes

No

(47) Lot-et-Garonne: CH Agen

1

10,000

No

No

(49) Maine-et-Loire: CHU Angers

4

23,882

Yes

Yes

(54) Meurthe-et-Moselle: CH Lunéville

1

8,200

No

No

(59) Nord: CH Dunkerque

6

26,156

Yes

Yes

(62) Pas de Calais: CH St Omer

1

ND

ND

ND

(63) Puy de Dôme: CH Thiers

1

6,000

No

No

(63) Puy de Dôme: CHU Clermont Ferrand

4

22,000

Yes

No

(64) Pyrénnées Atlantiques: CH Bayonne

2

15,000

Yes

Yes

(64) Pyrénnées Atlantiques: CH Pau

2

13,000

Yes

No

(71) Saône-et-Loire: CH Mâcon

1

17,025

Yes

ND

(72) Sarthre: CH Le Mans

1

28,643

Yes

Yes

(75) Paris: CHU Cochin

22

23,368

Yes

Yes

(75) Paris: CHU Hôtel Dieu

3

22,586

Yes

Yes

(75) Paris: CHU Pitié

9

39,045

Yes

No

(75) Paris: CHU Saint Antoine

1

23,710

Yes

Yes

(75) Paris: CHU Saint Louis

38

16,948

Yes

Yes

(75) Paris: CHU Tenon

5

22,261

No

No

(79) Deux Sèvres: CH Niort

1

17,700

Yes

No

(81) Tarn: CH Albi

3

14,587

No

No

(91) Essonne: CH Longjumeau

6

15,000

Yes

Yes

(94) Créteil: CHU Henri Mondor

5

22,783

Yes

No

ED, emergency department, ND, not determined.

A solid neoplasm was reported in 111 patients (56%) and haematological cancer in 87 (44%). Seventy-four patients (39%) had an underlying disorder. Patients often self-referred to the ED (n = 87, 44%). Forty-seven (24%) patients were treated with G-CSF to prevent neutropenia and 174 (88%) had one or more risk factors that should have prompted the prophylactic use of G-CSF (Table 4).
Table 4

Prescription of G-CSF

Variables

Number (%)

Prophylactic prescription of G-CSF before referral in ED

47 (24)

Age >65 years

14 (30)

Recurrent or resistant cancer

28 (60)

Chemotherapy at high-risk for neutropenia (risk >20%)

15 (38)

Previous history of febrile neutropenia

15 (32)

Prescription of G-CSF initiated in ED

27 (19)

Patients with severe sepsis

12 (44)

ED, emergency department; G-CSF, granulocyte-cell stimulating factor.

The characteristics of the patients are summarised in Table 5. Median delay between chemotherapy and ED visit was 10 days, ranging from 4 to 35 days. According to the criteria selected for disease severity, 89 (45%) patients had SS/SSh, 108 (55%) did not have SS/SSh and one could not be classified.
Table 5

Characteristics of the patients

 

Total population

Patients with severe sepsis

Patients without severe sepsis

P

Number of patients

198

89

108

 

Age (years), mean ± SD

61 ± 14

65 ± 13

57 ± 14

<0.001

Female, n (%)

79 (41)

30 (34)

49 (46)

0.11

Karnofsky index, median (range)

70 (30-100)

70 (30-100)

80 (30-100)

0.06

Underlying disorders, n (%)

73 (38)

36 (43)

37 (35)

0.32

   Chronic pulmonary disease

9 (12)

6 (16)

3 (3)

 

   Chronic heart failure

12 (16)

9 (24)

3 (3)

 

   Cirrhosis

7 (9)

4 (11)

3 (3)

 

   Hemodialysis chronic renal failure

2 (3)

2 (5)

0

 

   Severe neurological disorder

3 (4)

1 (3)

2 (2)

 

   Other

51 (69)

21 (57)

30 (29)

 

Haematological neoplasm, n (%)

87 (44)

40 (45)

47 (44)

0.84

   Lymphoproliferation

64 (32)

30 (34)

34 (31)

 

   Myeloproliferation

22 (11)

10 (11)

12 (11)

 

   Undetermined

1

0

1

 

Solid cancer

111 (56)

49 (55)

61 (56)

 

   Lung

39 (20)

24 (27)

15 (14)

 

   Breast

26 (13)

9 (10)

17 (16)

 

   Urological and genital

18 (9)

9 (10)

9 (8)

 

   Gastro-intestinal

13 (7)

5 (6)

7 (6)

 

   Other or undetermined

15 (8)

1

8 (7)

 

Presence of metastasis or uncontrolled

133 (67)

69 (78)

63 (58)

0.004

Previous history of febrile neutropenia

60 (31)

24 (27)

36 (35)

0.32

Chemotherapy at high-risk for neutropenia

36 (23)

15 (21)

21 (25)

0.57

Corticosteroids

83 (42)

37 (42)

46 (43)

0.89

Prophylaxis with G-CSF

47 (25)

18 (20)

29 (28)

0.22

Antimicrobial therapy prior to ED

48 (25)

15 (17)

33 (31)

0.03

MASCC <20 (high-risk)

105 (53)

67 (75)

38 (35)

<0.001

Results are expressed as number (%), mean ± standard deviation (SD), or median (range). P values below 0.05 are statistically significant.

ED, emergency department; G-CSF, granulocyte-cell stimulating factor; MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer.

Among the 89 patients with SS/SSh, ED physicians recognised the severity signs in 45 (55%). Blood cultures were obtained from 87 (98%) patients and lactate concentration was measured in 29 (32%). Antimicrobial therapy with a broad-spectrum beta-lactam was started within 90 minutes in 19 of 86 (22%) patients (data missing for three). Among these patients, nine (10%) also received an aminoglycoside. Appropriate fluid challenge was given to 43 (49%) patients and 88 were hospitalised (99%), including 18 who were admitted to the ICU. Only six (7%) patients with SS/SSh received adequate management (Table 6). Of note, G-CSF was initiated in the ED in 12 patients (14%) with SS/SSh.
Table 6

Characteristics of the management of febrile neutropenia in patients with or without severe sepsis

Management in the ED

Patients with severe sepsis

Patients without severe sepsis

 

(n = 89)

High risk

(n = 38)

Low risk

(n = 70)

Adequate antimicrobial therapy

28 (32)

30 (81)

31 (44)

Supportive treatment

   

   Fluid challenge

43 (49)

5 (14)

6 (9)

   Vasoactive drugs

6 (7)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Laboratory data

   

   Lactate concentration

29 (33)

1 (3)

11 (16)

   Blood cultures

87 (99)

36 (100)

63 (93)

New prescription of G-CSF

12 (14)

4 (11)

12 (17)

Adequate orientation

88 (99)

35 (95)

6 (9)

Global adequate management

6 (7)

26 (68)

1 (1)

Risk of patients without severe sepsis was determined using MASCC criteria (low risk if MASCC ≥ 20; high risk if MASCC <20). All results are expressed as number (%). ED, emergency department; G-CSF, granulocyte-cell stimulating factor; MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer.

There were 108 patients without SS/SSh: 38 were high risk (35%) and 70 were low risk (65%) according to MASCC criteria. In the high-risk category, adequate antimicrobial therapy was given to 31 (81%) patients, G-CSF was initiated in the ED in four (10%) and 35 (95%) were hospitalised. In the low-risk category, four (6%) patients received an adequate oral antimicrobial agent, but an IV antimicrobial agent was prescribed in 59 (84%) cases. G-CSF was initiated in the ED in 12 (17%) patients. Only six patients (9%) were discharged; the remaining patients were believed to have been admitted. Adequate management was proposed in 27 of 108 (25%) patients without SS/SSh, 26 (68%) high-risk patients and one low-risk patient (Table 2).

The 33 (17%) patients who were given adequate management were compared with the 161 (83%) patients managed inadequately (important data were missing in four patients that were excluded from the analysis). Patients without SS/SSh were significantly more likely to receive adequate management than those with SS/SSh (P = 0.00009). On the other hand, adequate management was proposed in 32 of 103 high-risk patients (31%) whereas only 1 low-risk patient out of 91 (P < 0.0001) was treated according to recommendations (Table 7).
Table 7

Factors associated with adequate management

Variables

 

Adequate management

(n = 33)

Inadequate management

(n = 161)

P

Tertiary teaching hospital

Yes

24 (12)

92 (88)

0.1

 

No

9 (21)

68 (79)

 

Number of ED visits during study period

<20 000

17 (18)

78 (82)

0.80

 

≥ 20 000

15 (16)

76 (84)

 

Unit for cancer patients

Yes

29 (18)

132 (82)

1

 

No

4 (15)

22 (85)

 

Written procedures for febrile neutropenia management

Yes

24 (21)

92 (79)

0.16

 

No

9 (13)

62 (87)

 

Age (mean ± SD)

 

58 ± 17

61 ± 14

0.30

Sex

Male

17 (15)

97 (85)

0.29

 

Female

16 (21)

61 (79)

 

Karnosfsky index (median (range))

 

70 (30-100)

80 (30-100)

0.07

Place of stay

Home

30 (18)

139 (82)

0.23

 

House care

2 (40)

3 (60)

 

Underlying disorder

Yes

12 (17)

60 (83)

0.78

 

No

21 (18)

94 (82)

 

Type of cancer

Haematological

14 (17)

70 (83)

0.91

 

Solid cancer

19 (17)

91 (83)

 

Presence of metastasis or uncontrolled

Yes

22 (17)

108 (83)

0.96

 

No

11 (17)

53 (83)

 

Antimicrobial therapy prior to ED

Yes

9 (9)

39 (91)

0.75

 

No

24 (17)

119 (83)

 

Time of ED visit

Day

18 (15)

102 (85)

0.24

 

Night

15 (22)

54 (78)

 

Level of nurse triage

<3

20 (22)

73 (78)

0.43

 

≥ 3

8 (16)

42 (84)

 

Presence of severity signs according to ED physician

Yes

9 (17)

45 (83)

0.82

 

No

24 (18)

109 (82)

 

Severe sepsis

Yes

6 (7)

80 (93)

0.0009

 

No

27 (25)

81 (75)

 

Cancer specialist advice

Yes

14 (17)

70 (83)

0.95

 

No

18 (17)

88 (83)

 

MASCC classification

High risk

32 (31)

71 (69)

<0.001

 

Low risk

1 (1)

90 (99)

 

Protective isolation

Yes

29 (19)

128 (81)

0.50

 

No

4 (13)

26 (87)

 

Surgical management

Yes

2 (50)

2 (50)

0.12

 

No

26 (15)

146 (85)

 

Adequate orientation

Agree

26 (17)

129 (83)

0.65

 

Disagree

7 (20)

28 (80)

 

Values shown are number and percentage unless stated otherwise. P values below 0.05 are statistically significant.

ED, emergency department; G-CSF, granulocyte-cell stimulating factor; MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; SD, standard deviation.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that cancer patients with febrile neutropenia visiting the ED are likely to present with SS/SSh, and their management does not comply with current guidelines especially in those with more severe infections.

The 47 participating centres were distributed across France and presented heterogeneous characteristics. This was representative of French EDs overall. As only 60% of hospitals had a dedicated cancer unit, it was assumed that cancer patients with febrile neutropenia visited community hospitals with this acute adverse event. This suggests that procedures to treat these patients should be available in every ED. However, only 40% of participating centres reported a written protocol for the management of febrile neutropenia. A total of 198 consecutive patients with febrile neutropenia were included in the study. The demographic characteristics of these patients corresponded to epidemiologic data published by the French Institute Survey for cancer [16].

EDs are first dedicated to the management of patients with severe disorders including severe infections. A recent study reported that SS/SSh accounted for more than 500,000 visits annually in US EDs [21]. In addition, the incidence of severe sepsis is increasing [22], cancer is a predisposing factor for sepsis, and the number of cancer patients will almost double within one decade [23]. Optimising prevention of febrile neutropenia is therefore an important part of the management. Forty-seven (24%) patients were treated with G-CSF to prevent febrile neutropenia, whereas 174 (88%) had one or more risk factors that should have prompted the prophylactic use of G-CSF [24]. In our sample, there was an under-use of G-CSF in patients at risk of febrile neutropenia. The under-use of G-CSF in oncology practice was also reported previously by Hayes [25]. We therefore believe that emergency physicians will have increasing chances to treat febrile neutropenia.

In their series used to derive and validate the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score, Shapiro and colleagues reported that 35.5% and 2.5% of patients visiting the ED with infection had severe sepsis and septic shock, respectively [12]. Here we reported that 89 (45%) patients with febrile neutropenia presented with SS/SSh. This underscores that chemotherapy-related neutropenia in cancer patients is a risk factor for developing severe infection. In our series, very few patients that developed severe infections were treated according to current guidelines. Indeed, adequate management was initiated in only six patients. This may suggest that detecting severe infections is challenging for emergency physicians. Initial severity assessment is sometimes falsely reassuring and patients may worsen during their stay in the ED [26]. A study conducted in Brazil [14] reported that ED physicians were able to detect severe infection in 15.8% of cases. Implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines improved detection of severe infections but 61.5% of patients remained under-treated because of inadequate assessment. Measuring lactate concentration has been recommended to help physicians detect [26] and manage severe infections [27]. We observed that lactate was infrequently measured in the present series. Therefore, procedures to optimise detection of severe infection were partially applied in our patients that did not seem to be perceived as severely ill.

A burden of evidence supports the paramount role of early recognition and prompt management of severe infection, and admission to the ICU when applicable [27]. The prognosis of patients with severe infection actually depends on their initial management; that is, treatment received in the ED for half of patients [28]. We observed that few patients received adequate antimicrobial therapy or fluid challenge in an appropriate time-span. We therefore conclude that patients with severe infection were under-treated. Similar findings were reported in a large Spanish study [29], as an incredibly low rate of patients admitted with SS/SSh received process-of-care according to bundles, even after an educational program involving physicians and nurses of the ED and ICU. An inadequate initial assessment may result from difficulties to correctly implement guidelines in a busy ED. First, equipment and physicians' skills to provide complex technical procedures to patients vary betwen hospitals [30]. Barriers can also be related to time consumption of procedures necessary to implement procedures for severe infections. In addition, all team leaders are not fully confident in guidelines to treat severe infections [31]. However, we checked fluid loading and delay to first antimicrobial agent that do not require specific skills or organisation. We observed that these basic treatments were not correctly delivered. In a series of sepsis with hypotension, the delay to antimicrobial agents was over six hours in more than half of patients because infection was not recognised. We believe that most patients were not treated according to guidelines because initial assessment failed to detect the severity of disease.

Despite the efforts in the past decade to produce and distribute specific guidelines for treating severe infection, difficulties persist to detect SS/SSh even in typically at-risk patients such as those with febrile neutropenia.

Delay to first antimicrobial agent has an impact on prognosis in patients presenting infection with severity criteria [32]. Guidelines to treat patients with SS/SSh endorse that first dose of antibiotics should be given in a timespan shorter than 90 minutes [9]. Whereas it can be assumed that earlier antimicrobial agents would improve prognosis in febrile neutropenia, no evidence can currently lead to any recommendations about delay. Consequently, guidelines to treating patients with febrile neutropenia are not clear regarding delays to treatment; therefore, objectives are easier to obtain. This may partly explain why management of patients without SS/SSh frequently reached goals.

A puzzling result is that supportive care was not modified by the intervention of the oncologist or haematologist: the presence of a medical unit dedicated to cancer in the same hospital, the existence of written procedures about febrile neutropenia, or the oncologist's advice did not improve the quality of care. Despite recent validation studies, the relevance of MASCC to guide site of care can be limited because several cornerstone items are missing from this evaluation tool [18]. This supports the fact that the assessment of severity of infection in a short time-span appears to be particularly challenging in onco-haematological patients [33].

The study has several limitations. Whereas simplicity of the study design presumably improved acceptability and feasibility, we cannot rule out that patients could be missed because making clinical research around the clock is sometimes difficult in busy EDs. Our study did not follow up the patients. It was decided to carry out a descriptive study and patients' outcomes were not recorded. Thus, it is unknown whether the prognosis of the patients with febrile neutropenia would have changed if recommendations had been implemented. In addition, the study was proposed to 350 French hospitals, but only 47 took part. Therefore, results could have been biased because EDs that participated were possibly more involved in the management of patients with sepsis and/or cancer. However, these centres were geographically distributed across France and were representative of French EDs because they were mostly set in general hospitals. In addition, only 19 Eds had a written procedure for febrile neutropenia. The convenience series was also limited because no patient waived the invitation to participate in this prospective study. Another limitation was the use of MASCC criteria to decide on the site of care and antimicrobial therapy because this score has never been validated in the ED setting. Stratification of patients using the MASCC scoring system is debatable as consensus meetings suggest that it is not superior to expert advice. However, the MASCC classification has been regularly used as a gold standard to stratify patients with febrile neutropenia. In addition MASCC calculation depends on the burden of the onco-haematological disorder. However, it is usually accepted that patients with advanced cancer under-estimate the severity of the disorder [34, 35]. As emergency physicians usually obtain past medical history from patients' interviews, they may misclassify severity of febrile neutropenia when assessed by MASCC level. Finally, we found that patients with more severe and mild febrile neutropenia were inadequately treated according to a univariate analysis. We were unable to identify risk factors for inadequate management by a multivariate analysis, partly because of the size of the sample.

Conclusions

Patients with febrile neutropenia who visit the EDs are likely to develop severe infection. In this sample, patients who met our definition of SS/SSh had a low rate of being treated with adequate fluid and a low rate of evaluation with serum lactate level. Patients who were considered to be low risk were often admitted to the hospital rather than being discharged home on oral antibiotics. More work is needed within the standard operation protocols of EDs as well as outcome-based research to optimise care for these patients.

Key messages

  • Patients with febrile neutropenia are likely to present to the ED with severe infections.

  • More severe patients are poorly recognised and under-treated.

  • Patients with mild disorders are over-treated.

  • Patients with febrile neutropenia presenting to the ED are usually not treated according to guidelines.

Abbreviations

ED: 

emergency department

G-CSF: 

granulocyte-cell stimulating factor

MASCC: 

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

SS: 

severe sepsis

SSh: 

septic shock.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Amgen France. The funding source did not participate in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

We are indebted to Dr Eric Leuteneger and ABR Pharma for their valuable technical and logistical support. The study was approved by the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence, SFMU).

We are very grateful to all local investigators who participated in the recruitment of patients: (01) Ain: CH Bourg-en-Bresse, Dr Eskandinian; (03) Allier: CH Vichy, Dr Limoges; (06) Alpes Maritimes: CHU Nice, Dr Burgos; (07) Ardèche: CH Annonay, Dr Gauclere; (07) Ardèche: CH Aubenas, Dr Barjon; (09) Ariège: CH Val d'Ariège, Dr Mimoun; (13) Bouches-du-Rhône: CH Martigues, Dr Durand; (15) Cantal: CH Aurillac, Dr Dejou; (15) Cantal: CH Mauriac, Dr Lamalle; (17) Charente-Maritime: CH La Rochelle, Dr Tabary; (17) Charente-Maritime: CH Rochefort sur Mer, Dr Fazilleau; (19) Corrèze: CH Tulles, Dr Beaujean; (22) Côtes d'Armor: CH Saint Brieuc, Dr Floch; (24) Dordogne: CH Périgueux, Dr Ely; (26) Drôme: CH Valence, Dr Abou Abbas; (28) Eure et Loire: CH Chartres, Dr Maisonnier; (35) Ile et Vilaine: CH Saint Malo, Dr Verley; (36) Indre: CH Le Blanc, Dr Sylvestre; (37) Indre et Loire: CH Chinon, Dr Gerard; (37) Indre et Loire: CHU Tours, Pr Lanotte; (38) Isère: CHU Grenoble, Dr Ara Somohano; (40) Landes: CH Mont de Marsan, Dr Harambat; (42) Loire: CHU Saint Etienne, Dr Viallon; (44) Loire Atlantique: CH Châteaubriant, Dr Hourdin; (45) Loiret: CH Montargis, Dr Klein; (45) Loiret: CH Orléans, Dr Martin; (47) Lot et Garonne: CH Agen, Dr De Bortoli; (49) Maine et Loire: CHU Angers, Dr Pattier; (54) Meurthe et Moselle: CH Lunéville, Dr Rosa; (59) Nord: CH Dunkerque, Dr Delangue; (62) Pas de Calais: CH Saint Omer, Dr Capelle; (63) Puy de Dôme: CH Thiers, Dr Poitrineau; (63) Puy de Dôme: CHU Clermont Ferrand, Dr Peyrat; (64) Pyrénées Atlantiques: CH Bayonne, Dr Sevilla; (64) Pyrénées Atlantiques: CH Pau, Dr Mangon; (71) Saône et Loire: CH Mâcon, Dr Delbrassine; (72) Sarthe: CH Le Mans, Dr Coroller-Bec; (75) Paris: CHU Cochin, Dr André; (75) Paris: CHU Hôtel Dieu, Dr Kierzek; (75) Paris: CHU Pitié-Salpétrière, Dr Delerme; (75) Paris: CHU Saint Antoine, Dr Chaille; (75) Paris: CHU Saint Louis, Dr Taboulet; (75) Paris: CHU Tenon, Dr Cassy; (79) Deux Sèvres: CH Niort, Dr Delaunoy; (81) Tarn: CH Albi, Dr Depierre; (91) Essonne: CH Longjumeau, Dr Andrianjafy; (94) Créteil: CHU Henri Mondor, Dr Santin.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôpital Cochin, APHP
(2)
Université Paris Descartes
(3)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôpital Saint-Louis, APHP
(4)
Department of Biostatistics, Hôpital Necker, APHP
(5)
Department of Haematology, Hôpital Haut-Lévêque
(6)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôpital Necker, APHP
(7)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôtel-Dieu, APHP
(8)
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôpital Purpan

References

  1. Armstrong D, Young LS, Meyer RD, Blevins AH: Infectious complications of neoplastic disease. Med Clin North Am 1971, 55: 729-745.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber FD: Management of fever in neutropenic patients with cancer. Nurs Clin North Am 2001, 36: 631-644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987, 40: 373-383. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rolston KV, Tarrand JJ: Pseudomonas aeruginosa - still a frequent pathogen in patients with cancer: 11-year experience at a comprehensive cancer center. Clin Infect Dis 1999, 29: 463-464. 10.1086/520247View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Talcott JA, Rubenstein EB: Initial clinical evaluation and risk assessment of the febrile neutropenic patient. In Textbook of Febrile Neutropenia. Edited by: Kenneth VI Rolston, Edward B Rubenstein. London: Martin Dunitz; 2001:151-165.Google Scholar
  6. Klastersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, Boyer M, Elting L, Feld R, Gallagher J, Herrstedt J, Rapoport B, Rolston K, Talcott J: 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: 3038-3051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, Cohen J, Opal SM, Vincent JL, Ramsay G, International Sepsis Definitions Conference: 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Intensive Care Med 2003, 29: 530-538.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Prise en charge hémodynamique du sepsis sévère (nouveau-né exclu)[http://www.sfmu.org/documents/consensus/cc_sepsis.pdf]
  9. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, Gea-Banacloche J, Keh D, Marshall JC, Parker MM, Ramsay G, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL, Levy MM, Surviving Sepsis Campaign Management Guidelines Committee: Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004, 32: 858-873. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000117317.18092.E4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Conférence de consensus 2007: Prise en charge initiale des états septiques graves de l'adulte et de l'enfant.[http://www.sfmu.org/documents/consensus/Groupe%20Transversal%20Sepsis%20Fn.doc]
  11. Dhainaut JF, Claessens YE, Janes J, Nelson DR: Underlying disorders and their impact on the host response to infection. Clin Infect Dis 2005, 41: S481-489. 10.1086/432001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Moore RB, Smith E, Burdick E, Bates DW: Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score: a prospectively derived and validated clinical prediction rule. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 670-675. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054867.01688.D1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cordonnier C, Magnier C, Leverger G, Ghanassia JP, Herbrecht R, pour le groupe Clioh: Résultats d'une enquête de pratique en onco-hématologie réalisée en France en 2001. Press Med 2004, 33: 324-326. 10.1016/S0755-4982(04)98577-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Rezende E, Silva JM Jr, Isola AM, Campos EV, Amendola CP, Almeida SL: Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the emergency department and difficulties in the initial assistance. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2008, 63: 457-464.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Strehlow MC, Emond SD, Shapiro NI, Pelletier AJ, Camargo CA: National study of emergency department visits for sepsis, 1992 to 2001. Ann Emerg Med 2006, 48: 326-331. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.05.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Evolution de l'incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France de 1978 à 2000)[http://www.invs.sante.fr/publications/2003/rapport_cancer_2003/index.html]
  17. Bone RC: Sepsis, the sepsis syndrome, multiorgan failure: a plea for comparable definitions. Ann Intern Med 1991, 114: 332-333.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, Bow EJ, Brown AE, Calandra T, Feld R, Pizzo PA, Rolston KV, Shenep JL, Young LS: 2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002, 34: 730-751. 10.1086/339215View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kern WV: Risk assessment and risk-based therapeutic strategies in febrile neutropenia. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2001, 14: 415-422.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rolston KV: New trends in patient management: risk-based therapy for febrile patients with neutropenia. Clin Infect Dis 1999, 29: 515-521. 10.1086/598624View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang HE, Shapiro NI, Angus DC, Yealy DM: National estimates of severe sepsis in United States emergency departments. Crit Care Med 2007, 35: 1928-1936. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000277043.85378.C1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, Clermont G, Carcillo J, Pinsky MR: Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: 1303-1310. 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Petrelli NJ, Winer EP, Brahmer J, Dubey S, Smith S, Thomas C, Vahdat LT, Obel J, Vogelzang N, Markman M, Sweetenham JW, Pfister D, Kris MG, Schuchter LM, Sawaya R, Raghavan D, Ganz PA, Kramer B: Clinical Cancer Advances 2009: major research advances in cancer treatment, prevention, and screening--a report from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27: 6052-6069. 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.6171View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Aapro MS, Cameron DA, Pettengell R, Bohlius J, Crawford J, Ellis M, Kearney N, Lyman GH, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Walewski J, Weber DC, Zielinski C, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Guidelines Working Party: EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphomas and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42: 2433-2453. 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.05.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes NA: Analyzing current practice patterns: lessons from Amgen's Project ChemoInsight. Oncol Nurs Forum 2001, 28: 11-16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rady MY, Rivers EP, Martin GB, Smithline H, Appelton T, Nowak RM: Continuous central venous oximetry and shock index in the emergency department: use in the evaluation of clinical shock. Am J Emerg Med 1992, 10: 538-541. 10.1016/0735-6757(92)90178-ZView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Arnold RC, Shapiro NI, Jones AE, Schorr C, Pope J, Casner E, Parrillo JE, Dellinger RP, Trzeciak S, on behalf of the Emergency Medicine Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Investigators: Multi-center study of early lactate clearance as a determinant of survival in patients with presumed sepsis. Shock 2009, 32: 35-39. 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181971d47View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Alberti C, Brun-Buisson C, Burchardi H, Martin C, Goodman S, Artigas A, Sicignano A, Palazzo M, Moreno R, Boulmé R, Lepage E, Le Gall R: Epidemiology of sepsis and infection in ICU patients from an international multicentre cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2002, 28: 108-121. 10.1007/s00134-001-1143-zView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, González-Díaz G, Garnacho-Montero J, Ibáñez J, Palencia E, Quintana M, de la Torre-Prados MV, Edusepsis Study Group: Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA 2008, 299: 2294-2303. 10.1001/jama.299.19.2294Google Scholar
  30. Yu DT, Black E, Sands KE, Schwartz JS, Hibberd PL, Graman PS, Lanken PN, Kahn KL, Snydman DR, Parsonnet J, Moore R, Platt R, Bates DW, Academic Medical Center Consortium Sepsis Project Working Group: Severe sepsis: variation in resource and therapeutic modality use among academic centers. Crit Care 2003, 7: R24-R34. 10.1186/cc2171PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Carlbom DJ, Rubenfeld GD: Barriers to implementing protocol-based sepsis resuscitation in the emergency department--results of a national survey. Crit Care Med 2007, 35: 2525-2532. 10.1097/01.ccm.0000298122.49245.d7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, Gurka D, Kumar A, Cheang M: Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 1589-1596. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Velasco E, Portugal RD, Salluh JI: A simple score to predict early death in adult cancer patients with bloodstream infections. J Infect 2009, 59: 332-336. 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.08.009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Chow E, Andersson L, Wong R, Vachon M, Hruby G, Franssen E, Fung KW, Harth T, Pach B, Pope J, Connolly R, Schueller T, Stefaniuk K, Szumacher E, Hayter C, Finkelstein J, Danjoux C: Patients with advanced cancer: a survey of the understanding of their illness and expectations from palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2001, 13: 204-208.Google Scholar
  35. Tchen N, Bedard P, Yi QL, Klein M, Cella D, Eremenco S, Tannock IF: Quality of life and understanding of disease status among cancer patients of different ethnic origin. Brit J Cancer 2003, 89: 641-647. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601159PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© André et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.