@article{HackenbroichKrankeMeybohmetal.2022, author = {Hackenbroich, Samantha and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie}, title = {Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials}, series = {Systematic Reviews}, volume = {11}, journal = {Systematic Reviews}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13643-022-02048-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299660}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review's interpretation. Methods Conference abstracts were searched in the review's excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review's eligibility criteria, Cochrane 'risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated. Results We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14\% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86\% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review's eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71\% (55/77), age of participants in 56\% (43/77), and outcome details in 46\% (36/77). A total of 73\% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62\% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24\% (IQR, 18 to 29\%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low. Conclusions Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review's narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.}, language = {en} } @article{HelmerHelfSammethetal.2022, author = {Helmer, Philipp and Helf, Daniel and Sammeth, Michael and Winkler, Bernd and Hottenrott, Sebastian and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter}, title = {The use of non-invasive continuous blood pressure measuring (ClearSight\(^®\)) during central neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean section — a retrospective validation study}, series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, volume = {11}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, number = {15}, issn = {2077-0383}, doi = {10.3390/jcm11154498}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-286042}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: The close monitoring of blood pressure during a caesarean section performed under central neuraxial anaesthesia should be the standard of safe anaesthesia. As classical oscillometric and invasive blood pressure measuring have intrinsic disadvantages, we investigated a novel, non-invasive technique for continuous blood pressure measuring. Methods: In this monocentric, retrospective data analysis, the reliability of continuous non-invasive blood pressure measuring using ClearSight\(^®\) (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) is validated in 31 women undergoing central neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean section. In addition, patients and professionals evaluated ClearSight\(^®\) through questioning. Results: 139 measurements from 11 patients were included in the final analysis. Employing Bland-Altman analyses, we identified a bias of -10.8 mmHg for systolic, of -0.45 mmHg for diastolic and of +0.68 mmHg for mean arterial blood pressure measurements. Pooling all paired measurements resulted in a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.7 for systolic, of 0.67 for diastolic and of 0.75 for mean arterial blood pressure. Compensating the interindividual differences in linear regressions of the paired measurements provided improved correlation coefficients of 0.73 for systolic, of 0.9 for diastolic and of 0.89 for mean arterial blood pressure measurements. Discussion: Diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure are within an acceptable range of deviation from the reference method, according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) in the patient collective under study. Both patients and professionals prefer ClearSight\(^®\) to oscillometric blood pressure measurement in regard of comfort and handling.}, language = {en} } @article{HelmerHottenrottRodemersetal.2022, author = {Helmer, Philipp and Hottenrott, Sebastian and Rodemers, Philipp and Leppich, Robert and Helwich, Maja and Pryss, R{\"u}diger and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Winkler, Bernd E. and Sammeth, Michael}, title = {Accuracy and Systematic Biases of Heart Rate Measurements by Consumer-Grade Fitness Trackers in Postoperative Patients: Prospective Clinical Trial}, series = {Journal of Medical Internet Research}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research}, number = {12}, doi = {10.2196/42359}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299679}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: Over the recent years, technological advances of wrist-worn fitness trackers heralded a new era in the continuous monitoring of vital signs. So far, these devices have primarily been used for sports. Objective: However, for using these technologies in health care, further validations of the measurement accuracy in hospitalized patients are essential but lacking to date. Methods: We conducted a prospective validation study with 201 patients after moderate to major surgery in a controlled setting to benchmark the accuracy of heart rate measurements in 4 consumer-grade fitness trackers (Apple Watch 7, Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, Withings ScanWatch, and Fitbit Sense) against the clinical gold standard (electrocardiography). Results: All devices exhibited high correlation (r≥0.95; P<.001) and concordance (rc≥0.94) coefficients, with a relative error as low as mean absolute percentage error <5\% based on 1630 valid measurements. We identified confounders significantly biasing the measurement accuracy, although not at clinically relevant levels (mean absolute error<5 beats per minute). Conclusions: Consumer-grade fitness trackers appear promising in hospitalized patients for monitoring heart rate.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigFrankSchmadereretal.2022, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Frank, Tamara and Schmaderer, Christoph and Braunisch, Matthias C. and Renders, Lutz and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Meerpohl, Joerg J. and Haller, Bernhard and Allwang, Christine}, title = {COVID-19 Vaccines: Fear of side effects among German health care workers}, series = {Vaccines}, volume = {10}, journal = {Vaccines}, number = {5}, issn = {2076-393X}, doi = {10.3390/vaccines10050689}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270561}, year = {2022}, abstract = {(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.}, language = {en} } @article{NotzLeeMengeretal.2022, author = {Notz, Quirin and Lee, Zheng-Yii and Menger, Johannes and Elke, Gunnar and Hill, Aileen and Kranke, Peter and Roeder, Daniel and Lotz, Christopher and Meybohm, Patrick and Heyland, Daren K. and Stoppe, Christian}, title = {Omega-6 sparing effects of parenteral lipid emulsions-an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients}, series = {Critical Care}, volume = {26}, journal = {Critical Care}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13054-022-03896-3}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299710}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background Parenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. Results 1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95\% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95\% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95\% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95\% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95\% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care. Conclusion Overall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact.}, language = {en} } @article{SitterPecksRuedigeretal.2022, author = {Sitter, Magdalena and Pecks, Ulrich and R{\"u}diger, Mario and Friedrich, Sabine and Fill Malfertheiner, Sara and Hein, Alexander and K{\"o}nigbauer, Josefine T. and Becke-Jakob, Karin and Z{\"o}llkau, Janine and Ramsauer, Babett and Rathberger, Katharina and Pontones, Constanza A. and Kraft, Katrina and Meybohm, Patrick and H{\"a}rtel, Christoph and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Pregnant and postpartum women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 — first data from the CRONOS-registry}, series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, volume = {11}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, number = {3}, issn = {2077-0383}, doi = {10.3390/jcm11030701}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-255257}, year = {2022}, abstract = {(1) Background: Data on coronavirus 2 infection during pregnancy vary. We aimed to describe maternal characteristics and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 positive women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 during pregnancy and postpartum period based on data of a comprehensive German surveillance system in obstetric patients. (2) Methods: Data from COVID-19 Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study (CRONOS), a prospective multicenter registry for SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women, was analyzed with respect to ICU treatment. All women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 were included and compared regarding maternal characteristics, course of disease, as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes. (3) Results: Of 2650 cases in CRONOS, 101 women (4\%) had a documented ICU stay. Median maternal age was 33 (IQR, 30-36) years. COVID-19 was diagnosed at a median gestational age of 33 (IQR, 28-35) weeks. As the most invasive form of COVID-19 treatment interventions, patients received either continuous monitoring of vital signs without further treatment requirement (n = 6), insufflation of oxygen (n = 30), non-invasive ventilation (n = 22), invasive ventilation (n = 28), or escalation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 15). No significant clinical differences were identified between patients receiving different forms of ventilatory support for COVID-19. Prevalence of preterm delivery was significantly higher in women receiving invasive respiratory treatments. Four women died of COVID-19 and six fetuses were stillborn. (4) Conclusions: Our cohort shows that progression of COVID-19 is rare in pregnant and postpartum women treated in the ICU. Preterm birth rate is high and COVID-19 requiring respiratory support increases the risk of poor maternal and neonatal outcome.}, language = {en} } @article{SitterSchlesingerReinholdetal.2022, author = {Sitter, Magdalena and Schlesinger, Tobias and Reinhold, Ann-Kristin and Scholler, Axel and Heymann, Christian von and Welfle, Sabine and Bartmann, Catharina and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Kleinschmidt, Stefan and Schneider, Sven and Gottschalk, Andr{\´e} and Greve, Susanne and Wermelt, Julius Z. and Wiener, Roland and Schulz, Frank and Chappell, Daniel and Brunner, Maya and Neumann, Claudia and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter}, title = {COVID-19 in der geburtshilflichen An{\"a}sthesie: Prospektive Erfassung von SARS-CoV-2-Infektionen zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt sowie des peripartalen Verlaufs SARS-CoV-2-positiver Schwangerer}, series = {Der Anaesthesist}, volume = {71}, journal = {Der Anaesthesist}, number = {6}, issn = {1432-055X}, doi = {10.1007/s00101-021-01068-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-264878}, pages = {452-461}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Hintergrund Im Rahmen der Pandemie des SARS-CoV-2-Virus erlangte das Patientenkollektiv der Schwangeren fr{\"u}h Aufmerksamkeit. Initial wurde angesichts sich fr{\"u}h abzeichnender Krankheitsf{\"a}lle bei j{\"u}ngeren Patienten mit einem erheblichen Aufkommen peripartal zu betreuender, COVID-19-positiver Schwangerer gerechnet. Ziel der Arbeit Diese Arbeit vermittelt einen Einblick in die SARS-CoV-2-Infektionszahlen im Rahmen der geburtshilflichen An{\"a}sthesie zu Beginn der Pandemie sowie w{\"a}hrend der zweiten Infektionswelle in Deutschland. Methoden {\"U}ber das COALA-Register (COVID-19 related Obstetric Anaesthesia Longitudinal Assessment-Registry) wurden sowohl von M{\"a}rz bis Mai 2020 als auch von Oktober 2020 bis Februar 2021 in Deutschland und der Schweiz w{\"o}chentlich prospektiv Daten zu Verdachts- und best{\"a}tigten SARS-CoV-2-F{\"a}llen bei Schwangeren zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt erhoben. Betrachtet wurden die Verteilung dieser auf die Anzahl der Geburten, Zentren und Erhebungswochen sowie m{\"u}tterliche Charakteristika und Krankheitsverl{\"a}ufe. Ergebnisse Neun Zentren haben im Verlauf 44 SARS-CoV-2-positive Schwangere zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt bei 7167 Geburten (0,6 \%) gemeldet (3 F{\"a}lle auf 2270 Geburten (0,4 \%) und 41 F{\"a}lle auf 4897 Geburten (0,8 \%)). Berichtet wurden 2 schwere COVID-19-Verl{\"a}ufe (n = 1 mit Todesfolge nach ECMO, n = 1 mit ECMO {\"u}berlebt). Bei 28 (68 \%) Patientinnen verlief die Infektion asymptomatisch. Ein Neugeborenes wurde im Verlauf positiv auf SARS-CoV‑2 getestet. Schlussfolgerung Mithilfe des Registers konnte das Auftreten von F{\"a}llen zu Beginn der Pandemie zeitnah eingesch{\"a}tzt werden. Es traten sporadisch Verdachtsf{\"a}lle bzw. best{\"a}tigte F{\"a}lle auf. Aufgrund fehlender fl{\"a}chendeckender Testung muss aber von einer Dunkelziffer asymptomatischer F{\"a}lle ausgegangen werden. W{\"a}hrend der zweiten Infektionswelle wurden 68 \% asymptomatische F{\"a}lle gemeldet. Jedoch kann es bei jungen, gesunden Patientinnen ohne das Vorliegen typischer Risikofaktoren zu schwerwiegenden Verl{\"a}ufen kommen.}, language = {de} } @article{WernerPoppFichtneretal.2022, author = {Werner, Anne and Popp, Maria and Fichtner, Falk and Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Kranke, Peter and Steckelberg, Anke and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Redlich, Lisa Marie and Dickel, Steffen and Grimm, Clemens and Moerer, Onnen and Nothacker, Monika and Seeber, Christian}, title = {COVID-19 intensive care — Evaluation of public information sources and current standards of care in German intensive care units: a cross sectional online survey on intensive care staff in Germany}, series = {Healthcare}, volume = {10}, journal = {Healthcare}, number = {7}, issn = {2227-9032}, doi = {10.3390/healthcare10071315}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.}, language = {en} }