@article{HerrmannLotzKaragiannidisetal.2022,
  author    = {Herrmann, Johannes and Lotz, Christopher and Karagiannidis, Christian and Weber-Carstens, Steffen and Kluge, Stefan and Putensen, Christian and Wehrfritz, Andreas and Schmidt, Karsten and Ellerkmann, Richard K. and Oswald, Daniel and Lotz, G{\"o}sta and Zotzmann, Viviane and Moerer, Onnen and K{\"u}hn, Christian and Kochanek, Matthias and Muellenbach, Ralf and Gaertner, Matthias and Fichtner, Falk and Brettner, Florian and Findeisen, Michael and Heim, Markus and Lahmer, Tobias and Rosenow, Felix and Haake, Nils and Lepper, Philipp M. and Rosenberger, Peter and Braune, Stephan and Kohls, Mirjam and Heuschmann, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick},
  title     = {Key characteristics impacting survival of COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation},
  series = {Critical Care},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Critical Care},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13054-022-04053-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299686},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. Methods 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. Results Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO\(_{2}\)/FiO\(_{2}\) ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58-99). ICU survival was 31.4\%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42\%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38\%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41-0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20\%, 30\%, and 38\%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28-1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. Conclusions Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FarmerStrzelczykFinisguerraetal.2021,
  author    = {Farmer, Adam D. and Strzelczyk, Adam and Finisguerra, Alessandra and Gourine, Alexander V. and Gharabaghi, Alireza and Hasan, Alkomiet and Burger, Andreas M. and Jaramillo, Andr{\´e}s M. and Mertens, Ann and Majid, Arshad and Verkuil, Bart and Badran, Bashar W. and Ventura-Bort, Carlos and Gaul, Charly and Beste, Christian and Warren, Christopher M. and Quintana, Daniel S. and H{\"a}mmerer, Dorothea and Freri, Elena and Frangos, Eleni and Tobaldini, Eleonora and Kaniusas, Eugenijus and Rosenow, Felix and Capone, Fioravante and Panetsos, Fivos and Ackland, Gareth L. and Kaithwas, Gaurav and O'Leary, Georgia H. and Genheimer, Hannah and Jacobs, Heidi I. L. and Van Diest, Ilse and Schoenen, Jean and Redgrave, Jessica and Fang, Jiliang and Deuchars, Jim and Sz{\´e}les, Jozsef C. and Thayer, Julian F. and More, Kaushik and Vonck, Kristl and Steenbergen, Laura and Vianna, Lauro C. and McTeague, Lisa M. and Ludwig, Mareike and Veldhuizen, Maria G. and De Couck, Marijke and Casazza, Marina and Keute, Marius and Bikson, Marom and Andreatta, Marta and D'Agostini, Martina and Weymar, Mathias and Betts, Matthew and Prigge, Matthias and Kaess, Michael and Roden, Michael and Thai, Michelle and Schuster, Nathaniel M. and Montano, Nicola and Hansen, Niels and Kroemer, Nils B. and Rong, Peijing and Fischer, Rico and Howland, Robert H. and Sclocco, Roberta and Sellaro, Roberta and Garcia, Ronald G. and Bauer, Sebastian and Gancheva, Sofiya and Stavrakis, Stavros and Kampusch, Stefan and Deuchars, Susan A. and Wehner, Sven and Laborde, Sylvain and Usichenko, Taras and Polak, Thomas and Zaehle, Tino and Borges, Uirassu and Teckentrup, Vanessa and Jandackova, Vera K. and Napadow, Vitaly and Koenig, Julian},
  title     = {International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)},
  series = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Human Neuroscience},
  issn      = {1662-5161},
  doi       = {10.3389/fnhum.2020.568051},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-234346},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice.},
  language  = {en}
}