E analysis of admissions between 1996 and 2005 defined the number of elderly ICU patients.

E analysis of admissions between 1996 and 2005 defined the number of elderly ICU patients. Then between 2004 and 2006, consecutive patients 65 years admitted to general (631), cardiothoracic (722) or neurological (118) critical care units requiring 24 hours of 2 organ support were identified. Patients were divided into `young’ (age 65?4 years, n = 733) and `old’ (age 75 years, n = 738). Age, sex, organ support, diagnosis, and referral source were recorded. Patients were followed-up 1 year after discharge. A standard telephone interview of a random sample of survivors (young n = 15, old n = 22) assessed performance status and the EQ5D health-related quality of life [2]. Data were analysed using Kaplan eier and log rank. Results From 1996 to 2005, 47.3 (4,717) of admissions to the ICU were aged 65 years; 24.0 (2,393) were 75 years. Oneyear survival of the young group (51.8 ) was significantly (P < 0.001) better than the old group (37.9 ). However, in those receiving 3 organ support PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20799856 (young n = 197; old n = 199), this significance is lost (42.2 vs 32.6 , P >0.2). Younger elective surgical patients had better survival than older (79.4 , n = 196 vs 64.5 , n = 173). There was no survival difference between young and old after emergency surgery (52.9 , n = 57 vs 50.4 , n = 85; P > 0.5). There was no difference between `young’ and `old’ groups in the EQ5D weighted health index (0.67 ?0.30 vs 0.62 ?0.29, P > 0.5) or performance status MedChemExpress NSC23005 (sodium) scores (1.73 ?0.96 vs 1.72 ?0.98, P > 0.5). The EQ5D scores of survivors were lower than matched population norms (0.64 vs 0.76, P < 0.01). Conclusion Survival is worse in older ICU patients, although initial data suggest no difference in functional outcome. Survivors have lower quality-of-life scores than population norms [3]. Further work is pending. Methods Twenty-four patients were admitted to the ICU from August 2004 to August 2006 with a haematological malignancy. These were case-matched using sex, age (? years), APACHE II score (?) and admission diagnosis with patients admitted to the ICU without a diagnosis of haematological malignancy. Eighteen patients were matched to one case control; however, in six patients, two matches were found. Where it was impossible to differentiate between cases on the grounds of diagnosis, age or APACHE II score they were both included. We compared ICU and hospital mortality between the two groups. Results Patients with a haematological malignancy had an ICU mortality of 50 , and a hospital mortality of 58 . Control patients had an ICU mortality of 60 , and a hospital mortality of 67 (statistically nonsignificant). The length of time to admission between the two groups was significantly longer in the haematology group at 12.4 days, compared with 2.8 days in the control patients (P < 0.05). The level of organ support was the same between the two cohorts. Conclusion We have demonstrated that, for our unit, there was no statistically significant difference in hospital or ICU mortality between the two groups. In fact, the group with a haematological malignancy had a lower mortality than the control group. The presence of haematological malignancy, of itself, does not appear to increase the mortality risk, when compared with a population of patients without haematological malignancy of a similar age, APACHE II score and admission diagnosis.existing disease and (ii) patients receiving ward-based rehabilitation with those who receive formalised rehabilitation in dedicated facilitie.