@article{HerrmannAdamNotzetal.2020,
  author    = {Herrmann, Johannes and Adam, Elisabeth Hannah and Notz, Quirin and Helmer, Philipp and Sonntagbauer, Michael and Ungemach-Papenberg, Peter and Sanns, Andreas and Zausig, York and Steinfeldt, Thorsten and Torje, Iuliu and Schmid, Benedikt and Schlesinger, Tobias and Rolfes, Caroline and Reyher, Christian and Kredel, Markus and Stumpner, Jan and Brack, Alexander and Wurmb, Thomas and Gill-Schuster, Daniel and Kranke, Peter and Weismann, Dirk and Klinker, Hartwig and Heuschmann, Peter and R{\"u}cker, Viktoria and Frantz, Stefan and Ertl, Georg and Muellenbach, Ralf Michael and Mutlak, Haitham and Meybohm, Patrick and Zacharowski, Kai and Lotz, Christopher},
  title     = {COVID-19 Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome — A Multicenter Observational Study},
  series = {Frontiers in Medicine},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Medicine},
  issn      = {2296-858X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fmed.2020.599533},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-219834},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: Proportions of patients dying from the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vary between different countries. We report the characteristics; clinical course and outcome of patients requiring intensive care due to COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This is a retrospective, observational multicentre study in five German secondary or tertiary care hospitals. All patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in any of the participating hospitals between March 12 and May 4, 2020 with a COVID-19 induced ARDS were included. Results: A total of 106 ICU patients were treated for COVID-19 induced ARDS, whereas severe ARDS was present in the majority of cases. Survival of ICU treatment was 65.0\%. Median duration of ICU treatment was 11 days; median duration of mechanical ventilation was 9 days. The majority of ICU treated patients (75.5\%) did not receive any antiviral or anti-inflammatory therapies. Venovenous (vv) ECMO was utilized in 16.3\%. ICU triage with population-level decision making was not necessary at any time. Univariate analysis associated older age, diabetes mellitus or a higher SOFA score on admission with non-survival during ICU stay. Conclusions: A high level of care adhering to standard ARDS treatments lead to a good outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HerrmannNotzSchlesingeretal.2021,
  author    = {Herrmann, Johannes and Notz, Quirin and Schlesinger, Tobias and Stumpner, Jan and Kredel, Markus and Sitter, Magdalena and Schmid, Benedikt and Kranke, Peter and Schulze, Harald and Meybohm, Patrick and Lotz, Christopher},
  title     = {Point of care diagnostic of hypercoagulability and platelet function in COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective observational study},
  series = {Thrombosis Journal},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Thrombosis Journal},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12959-021-00293-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-260739},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy (CAC) leads to thromboembolic events in a high number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, specific diagnostic or therapeutic algorithms for CAC have not been established. In the current study, we analyzed coagulation abnormalities with point-of-care testing (POCT) and their relation to hemostatic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19 induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Our hypothesis was that specific diagnostic patterns can be identified in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS at risk of thromboembolic complications utilizing POCT. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. Longitudinal data from 247 rotational thromboelastometries (Rotem®) and 165 impedance aggregometries (Multiplate®) were analysed in 18 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU with a COVID-19 induced ARDS between March 12th to June 30th, 2020. Results Median age was 61 years (IQR: 51-69). Median PaO2/FiO2 on admission was 122 mmHg (IQR: 87-189), indicating moderate to severe ARDS. Any form of hemostatic complication occurred in 78 \% of the patients with deep vein/arm thrombosis in 39 \%, pulmonary embolism in 22 \%, and major bleeding in 17 \%. In Rotem® elevated A10 and maximum clot firmness (MCF) indicated higher clot strength. The delta between EXTEM A10 minus FIBTEM A10 (ΔA10) > 30 mm, depicting the sole platelet-part of clot firmness, was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events (OD: 3.7; 95 \%CI 1.3-10.3; p = 0.02). Multiplate® aggregometry showed hypoactive platelet function. There was no correlation between single Rotem® and Multiplate® parameters at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and thromboembolic or bleeding complications. Conclusions Rotem® and Multiplate® results indicate hypercoagulability and hypoactive platelet dysfunction in COVID-19 induced ARDS but were all in all poorly related to hemostatic complications..},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzmannLittigBraunischKrankeetal.2021,
  author    = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Allwang, Christine and Frank, Tamara and Meerpohl, Joerg Johannes and Haller, Bernhard and Schmaderer, Christoph},
  title     = {COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in germany},
  series = {Vaccines},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Vaccines},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {2076-393X},
  doi       = {10.3390/vaccines9070777},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242627},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95\% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7\%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.},
  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{HolzmannLittigStadlerPoppetal.2023,
  author    = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Stadler, David and Popp, Maria and Kranke, Peter and Fichtner, Falk and Schmaderer, Christoph and Renders, Lutz and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Assali, Tarek and Platen, Louise and Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Steckelberg, Anke and Pfadenhauer, Lisa and Haller, Bernhard and Fuetterer, Cornelia and Seeber, Christian and Schaaf, Christian},
  title     = {Locating medical information during an infodemic: information seeking behavior and strategies of health-care workers in Germany},
  series = {Healthcare},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Healthcare},
  number    = {11},
  issn      = {2227-9032},
  doi       = {10.3390/healthcare11111602},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-319306},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57\%), TV (57\%), and e-mail/newsletters (46\%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63\%), e-mail/newsletters (56\%), and professional journals (55\%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66\%), videos (45\%), and webinars (40\%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66\%), abstracts (62\%), webinars (48\%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63\%) vs. physician HCWs (70\%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{NotzLotzHerrmannetal.2021,
  author    = {Notz, Quirin and Lotz, Christopher and Herrmann, Johannes and Vogt, Marius and Schlesinger, Tobias and Kredel, Markus and Muellges, Wolfgang and Weismann, Dirk and Westermaier, Thomas and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter},
  title     = {Severe neurological complications in critically ill COVID‑19 patients},
  series = {Journal of Neurology},
  journal   = {Journal of Neurology},
  issn      = {0340-5354},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00415-020-10152-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232429},
  pages     = {1576-1579},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {No abstract available.},
  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{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}
}