Search

Background: It is unclear whether the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) improves outcomes in ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and whether SDD is associated with the development of antibiotic resistance. Objective: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Unit Patients (SuDDICU) trial. Design, setting, participants and intervention: SuDDICU is an international, crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs using two 12-month trial periods. For each period, participating ICUs will implement SDD plus standard care or standard care alone. The SuDDICU drug intervention is an oral paste and gastric suspension of three antibiotics combined with a 4-day course of intravenous antibiotics. Observational ecological assessments will be conducted during five surveillance periods. The trial will be conducted in 19 ICUs in Australia and ten ICUs in Canada and the United Kingdom, and will recruit 15 000–17 000 patients. Recruitment commenced in Australia in 2017. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include: duration of ventilation, ICU stay and hospital stay; incidence of new antibiotic-resistant organisms during the index ICU admission; changes in antibiotic-resistant organism rates; incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infections; and total use of antibiotics. Results and conclusions: SuDDICU will determine whether the use of SDD plus standard care is associated with a reduction in hospital mortality in ventilated ICU patients compared with standard care alone. It will also quantify the impact of the use of SDD on the development of antibiotic resistance. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000411549) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02389036).

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Two recent randomized controlled trials (Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock [ADRENAL] and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock [APROCCHSS]) of corticosteroids in patients with septic shock reported different treatment effects on 90-day mortality. Both trials enrolled patients who met the criteria for septic shock using the second international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-2), but the APROCCHSS trial mandated a greater severity of shock as an inclusion criterion. Methods The authors conducted post hoc sensitivity analyses of the ADRENAL trial to determine the effects of hydrocortisone versus placebo in subgroups selected using third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) diagnostic criteria or APROCCHSS inclusion criteria. Results There were 1,950 subjects (973 hydrocortisone and 977 placebo) who met the Sepsis-3 criteria (ADRENAL–Sepsis-3 cohort) and 905 patients (455 hydrocortisone and 450 placebo) who met the APROCCHSS criteria (ADRENAL–APROCCHSS cohort). At 90 days after randomization, in the ADRENAL–Sepsis-3 cohort, 312 of 963 (32.4%) and 337 of 958 (35.2%) patients assigned to hydrocortisone and placebo, respectively, had died (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = 0.166). The corresponding figures for the ADRENAL–APROCCHSS cohorts were 187 of 453 (41.3%) and 200 of 445 (44.9%), respectively (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.17; P = 0.303). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to death between the groups during the 90 days after randomization (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; P = 0.082 for ADRENAL–Sepsis-3; and hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.06; P = 0.156 for ADRENAL–APROCCHSS cohorts). In both cohorts, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock. In the ADRENAL–Sepsis-3 cohort, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had an increase in the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (57.0 ± 37.2 vs. 53.7 ± 38.2 days; 95% CI, 0.40 to 7.04; P = 0.028) and the number of days alive and free of the intensive care unit (54.3 ± 36.0 vs. 51.0 ± 37.1; 95% CI, 0.82 to 7.24; P = 0.014). Conclusions In a post hoc analysis of the ADRENAL trial participants who fulfilled either the Sepsis-3 or the APROCCHSS inclusion criteria, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in a lower 90-day mortality than placebo in septic shock.

Background Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. Methods We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Results From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P

Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-04T12:41:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2019-07-02 National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Background-The uptake of proven stroke treatments varies widely. We aimed to determine the association of evidence-based processes of care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and clinical outcome of patients who participated in the HEADPOST (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial), a multicenter cluster crossover trial of lying flat versus sitting up, head positioning in acute stroke. Methods and Results-Use of 8 AIS processes of care were considered: reperfusion therapy in eligible patients; acute stroke unit care; antihypertensive, antiplatelet, statin, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation; dysphagia assessment; and physiotherapist review. Hierarchical, mixed, logistic regression models were performed to determine associations with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores 0-2) at 90 days, adjusted for patient and hospital variables. Among 9485 patients with AIS, implementation of all processes of care in eligible patients, or defect-free care, was associated with improved outcome (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65) and better survival (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.62-3.09). Defect-free stroke care was also significantly associated with excellent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1) (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04-1.43). No hospital characteristic was independently predictive of outcome. Only 1445 (15%) of eligible patients with AIS received all processes of care, with significant regional variations in overall and individual rates. Conclusions-Use of evidence-based care is associated with improved clinical outcome in AIS. Strategies are required to address regional variation in the use of proven AIS treatments. Univ New South Wales, Fac Med, George Inst Global Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia Ctr Estudios Clin, Inst Ciencias & Innovac Med, Santiago, Chile Clin Alemana Univ Desarrollo, Fac Med, Serv Neurol, Dept Neurol & Psiquiatria, Santiago, Chile Peking Univ, Hlth Sci Ctr, George Inst Global Hlth, Beijing, Peoples R China Australian Catholic Univ, Nursing Res Inst, St Vincents Hlth Australia Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Univ Cent Lancashire, Fac Hlth & Wellbeing, Preston, Lancs, England Univ Chile, Fac Med, Dept Ciencias Neurol, Santiago, Chile Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Med Sch, Stroke Serv Neurol Div, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil Fukuoka Univ, Fac Med, Dept Prevent Med & Publ Hlth, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan Univ Leicester, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Leicester Biomed Res Ctr, Leicester, Leics, England Univ Leicester, Natl Inst Hlth Res, Leicester Biomed Res Ctr, Leicester, Leics, England Univ Edinburgh, Ctr Clin Brain Sci, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland George Inst Global Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia Univ Desarrollo, Serv Neurol, Dept Neurol & Psiquiatria Clin Alemana Santiago, Santiago, Chile St Vincents Hlth Australia Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Australian Catholic Univ, Sydney, NSW, Australia Univ Cent Lancashire, Stroke Practice Res Unit, Sch Hlth, Lancashire Clin Trials Unit, Preston, Lancs, England Univ Leicester, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Cardiovasc Res Ctr, British Heart Fdn, Leicester, Leics, England Univ Kelaniya, Dept Pharmacol, Fac Med, Colombo, Sri Lanka Christian Med Coll & Hosp, Dept Neurol, Ludhiana, India Kaohsiung Med Univ & Hosp, Dept Neurol, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Linkou Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Neurol, Taipei, Taiwan Peking Union Med Coll Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Univ Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Sch Med, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Univ Cent Lancashire, Sch Hlth Sci, Coll Hlth & Wellbeing, Preston, Lancs, England Univ Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile Univ New South Wales, Neurosci Res Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia Natl Univ Singapore, Dept Pharmacol, Singapore, Singapore Bradford Royal Infirm, Bradford Inst Hlth Res, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England Christian Med College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India RemediumOne Pvt Ltd, Kandy, Sri Lanka Kaohsiung Med Univ, Chung Ho Mem Hosp, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Calvary Publ Hosp Bruce, Bruce, Australia Royal North Shore Hosp, St Leonards, NSW, Australia Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Camperdown, NSW, Australia Concord Repatriat Gen Hosp, Camperdown, NSW, Australia Fiona Stanley Hosp, Camperdown, NSW, Australia Macquarie Base Hosp, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Med Ribeirao Preto, Hosp Clin, Sao Paulo, Brazil Hosp Governador Celso Ramos, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil Sao Paulo State Univ, Hosp Fac Med Botucatu, UNESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil Yangquan Coalmine Grp Gen Hosp, Yangquan, Peoples R China Nanjing Med Univ, Nanjing Hosp 1, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China 85 Hosp Peoples Liberat Army, Beijing, Peoples R China Chifeng Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Chifeng, Peoples R China Beijing Pinggu Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Wenzhou Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Wenzhou, Peoples R China Soochow Univ, Affiliated Hosp 2, Suzhou, Peoples R China Hebei Med Univ, Hosp 3, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, Peoples R China Capital Med Univ, Xuanwu Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Jining Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Jining, Peoples R China Third Peoples Hosp Huizhou, Huizhou, Peoples R China Second Cangzhou Cent Hosp, Cangzhou, Peoples R China Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Hosp Affiliated, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China Baogang Hosp, Baotou, Peoples R China Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Harbin, Heilongjiang, Peoples R China Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ Sch, Tong Ren Hosp, Peoples Hosp Hejian City, Shanghai, Peoples R China Peking Univ, Shougang Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Guangzhou Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 3, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China Second Hosp Nanchang, Nanchang, Jiangxi, Peoples R China Bethune Int Peace Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Hua Henan Prov Peoples Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Hua Henan Prov Peoples Hosp, Zhengzhou, Henan, Peoples R China Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Ninth Peoples Hosp, Shanghai, Peoples R China Shijiazhuang Cent Hosp, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, Peoples R China Hosp Base San Jos de Osorno, Osorno, Chile Christian Med Coll & Hosp, Ludhiana, Punjab, India Unit Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd, Mazumdar Shaw Med Ctr, Bangalore, Karnataka, India Dr Ramesh Cardiac & Multispecial Hosp Pvt Ltd, Guntur, India Post Grad Inst Med Educ & Res, Chandigarh, India Baby Mem Hosp Ltd, Calicut, Kerala, India Sree Chitra Tirunal Inst Med Sci & Technol, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India Sri Jayawardenepura Gen Hosp, Sri Jayawardenepura Kott, Sri Lanka Colombo North Teaching Hosp, Colombo, Sri Lanka Colombo South Coching Hosp, Colombo, Sri Lanka Linkou Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Taoyuan, Taiwan Taipei Med Univ, Shuang Ho Hosp, Taipei, Taiwan En Chu Kong Hosp, New Taipei, Taiwan Natl Cheng Kung Univ Hosp, Tainan, Taiwan Queen Alexandra Hosp, Portsmouth, Hants, England Portsmouth Hosp NHS Natl Hlth Serv iTrust, Portsmouth, Hants, England Univ Coll London Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, London, England Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hosp Birmingham, Birmingham, W Midlands, England Southend Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Southend On Sea, England Kings Coll Hosp London, London, England York Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, York, N Yorkshire, England Nottingham Univ Hosp NHS Trust, Nottingham, England Blackpool Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Blackpool, England Gloucestershire Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Gloucestershire Royal Hosp, Gloucester, England Teaching Hospi NHS Fdn Trust, London, England Royal Cornwall Hosp NHS Trust, Truro, England Royal London Hosp, Barts Hlth NHS Trust, London, England Sheffield Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England Cambridge Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Addenbrookes Hosp, Cambridge, England Royal Victoria Hosp, Belfast Hlth & Social Care Trust, London, England Pinderfields Gen Hosp, Mid Yorkshire Hosp NHS Trust, Wakefield, England Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Fdn Trust, London, England Bradford Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Bradford, W Yorkshire, England Great Western Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Swindon, Wilts, England Watford Dist Gen Hosp, Watford, England Imperial Coll Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England Medway NHS Fdn Trust, Gillingham, England Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen Univ NHS Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, England Calderdale & Huddersfield NHS Fdn Trust, Huddersfield, W Yorkshire, England Hywel Dda Univ Hlth Board, Haverfordwest, Wales Chesterfield Royal Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Calow, England Luton & Dunstable Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Luton, Beds, England Countess Chester Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Chester, Cheshire, England Peterborough City Hosp, Peterborough, Cambs, England Univ Hosp Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester Royal Infirm, Leicester, Leics, England Dist Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, London, England Barnsley Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Barnsley, England Dorset Cty Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Dorchester, England Royal Bournemouth & Christchurch Hosp NHS Fdn Tru, Royal Bournemouth Hosp, Bournemouth, Dorset, England Southern Hlth & Social Care Trust, Craigavon Area Hosp, Portadown, England United Lincolnshire Hosp NHS Trust, Pilgrim Hosp, Lincoln, England Bedford Hosp NHS Trust, Bedford, England Sao Paulo State Univ, Hosp Fac Med Botucatu, UNESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia: 1066966

Background Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. Methods We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Results From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P

The safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) for fluid resuscitation have not been fully evaluated, and adverse effects of HES on survival and renal function have been reported.We randomly assigned 7000 patients who had been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 6% HES with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of 0.4 (130/0.4, Voluven) in 0.9% sodium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) for all fluid resuscitation until ICU discharge, death, or 90 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury and failure and treatment with renal-replacement therapy.A total of 597 of 3315 patients (18.0%) in the HES group and 566 of 3336 (17.0%) in the saline group died (relative risk in the HES group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.18; P=0.26). There was no significant difference in mortality in six predefined subgroups. Renal-replacement therapy was used in 235 of 3352 patients (7.0%) in the HES group and 196 of 3375 (5.8%) in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P=0.04). In the HES and saline groups, renal injury occurred in 34.6% and 38.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.005), and renal failure occurred in 10.4% and 9.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). HES was associated with significantly more adverse events (5.3% vs. 2.8%, P0.001).In patients in the ICU, there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between patients resuscitated with 6% HES (130/0.4) or saline. However, more patients who received resuscitation with HES were treated with renal-replacement therapy. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; CHEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00935168.).

The intravenous fluid 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) (6% HES 130/0.4) is used widely for resuscitation but there is limited information on its efficacy and safety. A large-scale multi-centre randomised controlled trial (CHEST) in critically ill patients is currently underway comparing fluid resuscitation with 6% HES 130/0.4 to 0.9% sodium chloride on 90-day mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes including renal injury. This report describes the study protocol.CHEST will recruit 7,000 patients to concealed, random, parallel assignment of either 6% HES 130/0.4 or 0.9% sodium chloride for all fluid resuscitation needs whilst in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 90 days post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include incident renal injury, other organ failures, ICU and hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, quality of life at 6 months, health economic analyses and in patients with traumatic brain injury, functional outcome. Subgroup analyses will be conducted in four predefined subgroups. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.The study run-in phase has been completed and the main trial commenced in April 2010. CHEST should generate results that will inform and influence prescribing of this commonly used resuscitation fluid.

There are indications that compliance with routine clinical practices in intensive care units (ICU) varies widely internationally, but it is currently unknown whether this is the case throughout Australia and New Zealand. A one-day point prevalence study measured the prevalence of routine care processes being delivered in Australian and New Zealand ICUs including the assessment and/or management of: nutrition, pain, sedation, weaning from mechanical ventilation, head of bed elevation, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood glucose, pressure areas and bowel action. Using a sample of 50 adult ICUs, prevalence data were collected for 662 patients with a median age of 65 years and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18. Wide variations in compliance were evident in several care components including: assessment of nutritional goals (74%, interquartile range [IQR] 51 to 89%), pain score (35%, IQR 17 to 62%), sedation score (89%, IQR 50 to 100%); care of ventilated patients e.g. head of bed elevation >30 degrees (33%, IQR 7 to 62%) and setting weaning plans (50%, IQR 28 to 78%); pressure area risk assessment (78%, IQR 18 to 100%) and constipation management plan (43%, IQR 6 to 87%). Care components that were delivered more consistently included nutrition delivery (100%, IQR 100 to 100%), deep venous thrombosis (96%, IQR 89 to 100%) and stress ulcer (90%, IQR 78 to 100%) prophylaxis, and checking blood sugar levels (93%, IQR 88 to 100%). This point prevalence study demonstrated variability in the delivery of ‘routine’ cares in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. This may be driven in part by lack of consensus on what is best practice in intensive care units, prompting the need for further research in this area.

Background In order to assist health service planning, understanding factors that influence higher trauma treatment costs is essential. The majority of trauma costing research reports the cost of trauma from the perspective of the receiving hospital. There has been no comprehensive synthesis and little assessment of the drivers of cost variation, such as country, trauma, subgroups and methods. The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of research reporting the trauma treatment costs and factors associated with higher treatment costs in high income countries. Methods A systematic search for articles relating to the cost of acute trauma care was performed and included studies reporting injury severity scores (ISS), per patient cost/charge estimates; and costing methods. Cost and charge values were indexed to 2011 cost equivalents and converted to US dollars using purchasing power parities. Results A total of twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Eighty-one percent of these studies were conducted in high income countries including USA, Australia, Europe and UK. Studies either reported a cost (74.1%) or charge estimate (25.9%) for the acute treatment of trauma. Across studies, the median per patient cost of acute trauma treatment was $22,448 (IQR: $11,819-$33,701). However, there was variability in costing methods used with 18% of studies providing comprehensive cost methods. Sixty-three percent of studies reported cost or charge items incorporated in their cost analysis and 52% reported items excluded in their analysis. In all publications reviewed, predictors of cost included Injury Severity Score (ISS), surgical intervention, hospital and intensive care, length of stay, polytrauma and age. Conclusion The acute treatment cost of trauma is higher than other disease groups. Research has been largely conducted in high income countries and variability exists in reporting costing methods as well as the actual costs. Patient populations studied and the cost methods employed are the primary drivers for the treatment costs. Targeted research into the costs of trauma care is required to facilitate informed health service planning.

Our primary aim was to determine the frequency of use of pharmacological and physical cooling strategies in ICU patients in current Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) practice. These patients had sepsis and inflammation but did not have neurological injury or recent surgery. We also aimed to establish current indications for use of antipyretics in these patients, as well as information on the prevalence of fever and the methods to measure temperature.

The use of pharmacological and physical antipyretic therapies to reduce fever in febrile patients is common in hospital settings. Actual evidence on the frequency of antipyretic use is limited, however, both in general hospital populations and, more specifically, in adult intensive care [1-3]. We undertook a prospective point prevalence study with the aim of identifying the prevalence of physical and pharmacological antipyretic therapies in intensive care patients with sepsis and inflammation. We also recorded the indication for antipyretic therapies, temperature measurement site, and mean temperatures on the study day.

21010 Background: The aim is to study the clinical characteristics and outcomes of a complete cohort of presentations of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) compared with patients presenting with metastatic cancer of known primary site. Methods: All persons diagnosed with cancer in New South Wales, Australia, from 1980 to 2004 were studied using a population based cancer registry. Patients classified as CUP were documented, compared to those with initial metastatic presentations of a known primary, for the same period. Results: There were 65,239 histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic cancers presented. Of these 46,435 (77%) were metastatic with a known primary site and 13,280 (22%) were CUP. The median survival (ms) of all patients presenting with CUP was 3 months compared with 7 months for metastatic cancers of known primary site (p No significant financial relationships to disclose.