@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{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}
}