Search

Objectives National data reveal that 60% of the 4.5 million annual emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer result in admission. Many of these visits are due to a febrile illness. Current literature provides limited guidance on how to treat non‐neutropenic febrile ED patients. This study characterizes clinical outcomes of non‐neutropenic febrile patients with cancer presenting to an academic, Comprehensive Cancer Center affiliated ED. Methods Retrospective chart review of 101 randomly selected adult patients with active cancer presenting with a chief complaint of fever or a documented fever in the ED and an absolute neutrophil count above 1000 between October 2015 and September 2016. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results The primary malignancies represented were hematologic (24%), gastrointestinal (13%), head and neck (13%), and genitourinary (8%). Sixty‐two percent were on chemotherapy, 15% on radiation therapy, and 12% were on targeted therapy. Severe illness outcomes occurred in 39% and 83% were admitted with a median length of stay of 4 days. Among admitted patients, 24% experienced a length of stay ≤2 days. A return visit to the ED or an in‐system hospitalization within 7 days of the index visit occurred in 10% and death occurred within 7 days of the index visit in 4%. Conclusion A majority of patients presenting to the ED with non‐neutropenic fever are admitted (83%), of whom nearly a quarter experience a length of stay of ≤2 days with infrequent serious illness outcomes. Future efforts should focus on the development of risk stratification tools in this population to avoid potentially unnecessary hospitalizations.

Background The use of computed tomography (CT) has been scrutinized in emergency medicine, particularly in patients with cancer. Previous studies have characterized the rate of CT use in this population; however, limited data are available about the yield of this modality compared with radiography and its clinical decision-making effect. Objective To determine whether CT imaging of the chest increases identification of clinically significant results compared with chest radiography (CXR) in patients with cancer. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of patients with a history of solid tumors presenting to an emergency department in 2017. Patients who received both CXR and CT (or CT angiography) of the chest during their assessment were identified and the rate of clinically significant findings on imaging was compared. Clinical findings were further categorized as requiring nonurgent, urgent, or emergent attention. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared testing were performed between the 2 imaging modalities. Results From 839 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 287 were randomly sampled. The predominant malignancies were lung (32.4%), breast (13.9%), and head and neck cancer (13.6%). A greater number of patients had clinically significant findings identified on CT imaging (n = 222) compared with CXR (n = 108). Stratification upon urgency of these findings (nonurgent, urgent, or emergent) reveals a significant difference in all strata (p Conclusions Compared with CXR, CT imaging of the chest identified significantly more clinically relevant findings requiring attention and consequently affecting clinical decision making.