@article{StanglPoppReisetal.2024, author = {Stangl, Stephanie and Popp, Maria and Reis, Stefanie and Sitter, Magdalena and Saal-Bauernschubert, Lena and Schießer, Selina and Kranke, Peter and Choorapoikayil, Suma and Weibel, Stephanie and Meybohm, Patrick}, title = {Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes}, series = {Systematic Reviews}, volume = {13}, journal = {Systematic Reviews}, doi = {10.1186/s13643-023-02431-x}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357213}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Background Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33\%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted. Results Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92\%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77\%) and "need for further resources" (77\%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33\%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17\%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting. Conclusion This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020214247}, language = {en} } @article{LoebLinsmeierHerbertetal.2023, author = {L{\"o}b, Sanja and Linsmeier, Eva and Herbert, Saskia-Laureen and Schlaiß, Tanja and Kiesel, Matthias and Wischhusen, J{\"o}rg and Salmen, Jessica and Kranke, Peter and Quenzer, Anne and Kurz, Florian and Weiss, Claire and Gerhard-Hartmann, Elena and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Diessner, Joachim}, title = {Prognostic effect of HER2 evolution from primary breast cancer to breast cancer metastases}, series = {Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology}, volume = {149}, journal = {Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1007/s00432-022-04486-0}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324068}, pages = {5417-5428}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Purpose Therapeutic options for breast cancer (BC) treatment are constantly evolving. The Human Epidermal Growth Factor 2 (HER2)-low BC entity is a new subgroup, representing about 55\% of all BC patients. New antibody-drug conjugates demonstrated promising results for this BC subgroup. Currently, there is limited information about the conversion of HER2 subtypes between primary tumor and recurrent disease. Methods This retrospective study included women with BC at the University Medical Centre Wuerzburg from 1998 to 2021. Data were retrieved from patients' records. HER2 evolution from primary diagnosis to the first relapse and the development of secondary metastases was investigated. Results In the HR-positive subgroup without HER2 overexpression, HER2-low expression in primary BC was 56.7 vs. 14.6\% in the triple-negative subgroup (p < 0.000). In the cohort of the first relapse, HER2-low represented 64.1\% of HR-positive vs. 48.2\% of the triple-negative cohort (p = 0.03). In patients with secondary metastases, HER2-low was 75.6\% vs. 50\% in the triple negative subgroup (p = 0.10). The subgroup of HER2-positive breast cancer patients numerically increased in the course of disease; the HER2-negative overall cohort decreased. A loss of HER2 expression from primary BC to the first relapse correlated with a better OS (p = 0.018). No clinicopathological or therapeutic features could be identified as potential risk factors for HER2 conversion. Conclusion HER2 expression is rising during the progression of BC disease. In view of upcoming therapeutical options, the re-analysis of newly developed metastasis will become increasingly important.}, 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{HelmerRodemersHottenrottetal.2023, author = {Helmer, Philipp and Rodemers, Philipp and Hottenrott, Sebastian 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 = {Evaluating blood oxygen saturation measurements by popular fitness trackers in postoperative patients: a prospective clinical trial}, series = {iScience}, volume = {26}, journal = {iScience}, number = {11}, issn = {2589-0042}, doi = {10.1016/j.isci.2023.108155}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-349913}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Summary Blood oxygen saturation is an important clinical parameter, especially in postoperative hospitalized patients, monitored in clinical practice by arterial blood gas (ABG) and/or pulse oximetry that both are not suitable for a long-term continuous monitoring of patients during the entire hospital stay, or beyond. Technological advances developed recently for consumer-grade fitness trackers could—at least in theory—help to fill in this gap, but benchmarks on the applicability and accuracy of these technologies in hospitalized patients are currently lacking. We therefore conducted at the postanaesthesia care unit under controlled settings a prospective clinical trial with 201 patients, comparing in total >1,000 oxygen blood saturation measurements by fitness trackers of three brands with the ABG gold standard and with pulse oximetry. Our results suggest that, despite of an overall still tolerable measuring accuracy, comparatively high dropout rates severely limit the possibilities of employing fitness trackers, particularly during the immediate postoperative period of hospitalized patients. Highlights •The accuracy of O2 measurements by fitness trackers is tolerable (RMSE ≲4\%) •Correlation with arterial blood gas measurements is fair to moderate (PCC = [0.46; 0.64]) •Dropout rates of fitness trackers during O2 monitoring are high (∼1/3 values missing) •Fitness trackers cannot be recommended for O2 measuring during critical monitoring}, language = {en} } @article{SchmidEckertMeixneretal.2023, author = {Schmid, Benedikt and Eckert, Dominik and Meixner, Andreas and Pistner, Paul and Malzahn, Uwe and Berberich, Monika and Happel, Oliver and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Conventional versus video-assisted laryngoscopy for perioperative endotracheal intubation (COVALENT) - a randomized, controlled multicenter trial}, series = {BMC Anesthesiology}, volume = {23}, journal = {BMC Anesthesiology}, doi = {10.1186/s12871-023-02083-3}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357207}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Background Data on the routine use of video-assisted laryngoscopy in peri-operative intubations are rather inconsistent and ambiguous, in part due to small populations and non-uniform outcome measures in past trials. Failed or prolonged intubation procedures are a reason for relevant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine whether video-assisted laryngoscopy (with both Macintosh-shaped and hyperangulated blades) is at least equal to the standard method of direct laryngoscopy with respect to the first-pass success rate. Furthermore, validated tools from the field of human factors will be applied to examine within-team communication and task load during this critical medical procedure. Methods In this randomized, controlled, three-armed parallel group design, multi-centre trial, a total of more than 2500 adult patients scheduled for perioperative endotracheal intubation will be randomized. In equally large arms, video-assisted laryngoscopy with a Macintosh-shaped or a hyperangulated blade will be compared to the standard of care (direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade). In a pre-defined hierarchical analysis, we will test the primary outcome for non-inferiority first. If this goal should be met, the design and projected statistical power also allow for subsequent testing for superiority of one of the interventions. Various secondary outcomes will account for patient safety considerations as well as human factors interactions within the provider team and will allow for further exploratory data analysis and hypothesis generation. Discussion This randomized controlled trial will provide a solid base of data in a field where reliable evidence is of major clinical importance. With thousands of endotracheal intubations performed every day in operating rooms around the world, every bit of performance improvement translates into increased patient safety and comfort and may eventually prevent significant burden of disease. Therefore, we feel confident that a large trial has the potential to considerably benefit patients and anaesthetists alike. Trial registration ClincalTrials.gov NCT05228288. Protocol version 1.1, November 15, 2021.}, 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} } @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{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{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{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{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{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{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{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021, author = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie}, title = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting}, series = {BMC Anesthesiology}, volume = {21}, journal = {BMC Anesthesiology}, doi = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.}, 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{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{SchmidKredelUllrichetal.2021, author = {Schmid, Benedikt and Kredel, Markus and Ullrich, Roman and Krenn, Katharina and Lucas, Rudolf and Markstaller, Klaus and Fischer, Bernhard and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Zwißler, Bernhard and Frank, Sandra}, title = {Safety and preliminary efficacy of sequential multiple ascending doses of solnatide to treat pulmonary permeability edema in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS - a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial}, series = {Trials}, volume = {22}, journal = {Trials}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13063-021-05588-9}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-258783}, pages = {643}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a complex clinical diagnosis with various possible etiologies. One common feature, however, is pulmonary permeability edema, which leads to an increased alveolar diffusion pathway and, subsequently, impaired oxygenation and decarboxylation. A novel inhaled peptide agent (AP301, solnatide) was shown to markedly reduce pulmonary edema in animal models of ARDS and to be safe to administer to healthy humans in a Phase I clinical trial. Here, we present the protocol for a Phase IIB clinical trial investigating the safety and possible future efficacy endpoints in ARDS patients. Methods This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention study. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS in need of mechanical ventilation will be randomized to parallel groups receiving escalating doses of solnatide or placebo, respectively. Before advancing to a higher dose, a data safety monitoring board will investigate the data from previous patients for any indication of patient safety violations. The intervention (application of the investigational drug) takes places twice daily over the course of 7 days, ensued by a follow-up period of another 21 days. Discussion The patients to be included in this trial will be severely sick and in need of mechanical ventilation. The amount of data to be collected upon screening and during the course of the intervention phase is substantial and the potential timeframe for inclusion of any given patient is short. However, when prepared properly, adherence to this protocol will make for the acquisition of reliable data. Particular diligence needs to be exercised with respect to informed consent, because eligible patients will most likely be comatose and/or deeply sedated at the time of inclusion. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered with the EU Clinical trials register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu). EudraCT Number: 2017-003855-47.}, language = {en} } @article{WeibelPaceSchaeferetal.2021, author = {Weibel, Stephanie and Pace, Nathan L. and Schaefer, Maximilian S. and Raj, Diana and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Kienbaum, Peter and Eberhart, Leopold H. J. and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia: An abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis}, series = {Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine}, volume = {14}, journal = {Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1111/jebm.12429}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-259470}, pages = {188-197}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Objective In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form. Methods We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia. Results 585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27\% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20\% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing. Conclusions There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.}, language = {en} } @article{SchlesingerWeibelSteinfeldtetal.2021, author = {Schlesinger, Tobias and Weibel, Stephanie and Steinfeldt, Thorsten and Sitter, Magdalena and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Intraoperative management of combined general anesthesia and thoracic epidural analgesia: A survey among German anesthetists}, series = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica}, volume = {65}, journal = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica}, number = {10}, doi = {10.1111/aas.13971}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-258286}, pages = {1490-1496}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background Evidence concerning combined general anesthesia (GA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) is controversial and the procedure appears heterogeneous in clinical implementation. We aimed to gain an overview of different approaches and to unveil a suspected heterogeneity concerning the intraoperative management of combined GA and EA. Methods This was an anonymous survey among Members of the Scientific working group for regional anesthesia within the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) conducted from February 2020 to August 2020. Results The response rate was 38\%. The majority of participants were experienced anesthetists with high expertise for the specific regimen of combined GA and EA. Most participants establish EA in the sitting position (94\%), prefer early epidural initiation (prior to skin incision: 80\%; intraoperative: 14\%) and administer ropivacaine (89\%) in rather low concentrations (0.2\%: 45\%; 0.375\%: 30\%; 0.75\%: 15\%) mostly with an opioid (84\%) in a bolus-based mode (95\%). The majority reduce systemic opioid doses intraoperatively if EA works sufficiently (minimal systemic opioids: 58\%; analgesia exclusively via EA: 34\%). About 85\% manage intraoperative EA insufficiency with systemic opioids, 52\% try to escalate EA, and only 25\% use non-opioids, e.g. intravenous ketamine or lidocaine. Conclusions Although, consensus seems to be present for several aspects (patient's position during epidural puncture, main epidural substance, application mode), there is considerable heterogeneity regarding systemic opioids, rescue strategies for insufficient EA, and hemodynamic management, which might explain inconsistent results of previous trials and meta-analyses.}, language = {en} } @article{ReisPoppSchmidetal.2021, author = {Reis, Stefanie and Popp, Maria and Schmid, Benedikt and Stegemann, Miriam and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie}, title = {Safety and efficacy of intermediate- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis}, series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, volume = {11}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, number = {1}, issn = {2077-0383}, doi = {10.3390/jcm11010057}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252285}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Results: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95\% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95\% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95\% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95\% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95\% CI 1.15-2.74). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.}, language = {en} }