@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{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{WahlenRoewerKranke2010, author = {Wahlen, Bianca M. and Roewer, Norbert and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Use of local anaesthetics and adjuncts for spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia at German and Austrian University Hospitals: an online survey to access current standard practice}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-67847}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Background: The present anonymous multicenter online survey was conducted to evaluate the application of regional anaesthesia techniques as well as the used local anaesthetics and adjuncts at German and Austrian university hospitals. Methods: 39 university hospitals were requested to fill in an online questionnaire, to determine the kind of regional anaesthesia and preferred drugs in urology, obstetrics and gynaecology. Results: 33 hospitals responded. No regional anaesthesia is conducted in 47\% of the minor gynaecological and 44\% of the urological operations; plain bupivacaine 0.5\% is used in 38\% and 47\% respectively. In transurethral resections of the prostate and bladder no regional anaesthesia is used in 3\% of the responding hospitals, whereas plain bupivacaine 0.5\% is used in more than 90\%. Regional anaesthesia is only used in selected major gynaecological and urological operations. On the contrary to the smaller operations, the survey revealed a large variety of used drugs and mixtures. Almost 80\% prefer plain bupivacaine or ropivacaine 0.5\% in spinal anaesthesia in caesarean section. Similarly to the use of drugs in major urological and gynaecological operations a wide range of drugs and adjuncts is used in epidural anaesthesia in caesarean section and spontaneous delivery. Conclusions: Our results indicate a certain agreement in short operations in spinal anaesthesia. By contrast, a large variety concerning the anaesthesiological approach in larger operations as well as in epidural analgesia in obstetrics could be revealed, the causes of which are assumed to be primarily rooted in particular departmental structures.}, subject = {An{\"a}sthesiologie}, language = {en} } @article{BrevoordKrankeKuijpersetal.2012, author = {Brevoord, Daniel and Kranke, Peter and Kuijpers, Marijn and Weber, Nina and Hollmann, Markus and Preckel, Benedikt}, title = {Remote Ischemic Conditioning to Protect against Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}, series = {PLoS One}, volume = {7}, journal = {PLoS One}, number = {7}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0042179}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134471}, pages = {e42179}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Background: Remote ischemic conditioning is gaining interest as potential method to induce resistance against ischemia reperfusion injury in a variety of clinical settings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit and biomarker release in patients who suffer from or are at risk for ischemia reperfusion injury. Methods and Results: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing remote ischemic conditioning, regardless of timing, with no conditioning. Two investigators independently selected suitable trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. 23 studies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (15 studies), percutaneous coronary intervention (four studies) and vascular surgery (four studies), comprising in total 1878 patients, were included in this review. Compared to no conditioning, remote ischemic conditioning did not reduce mortality (odds ratio 1.22 [95\% confidence interval 0.48, 3.07]) or major adverse cardiovascular events (0.65 [0.38, 1.14]). However, the incidence of myocardial infarction was reduced with remote ischemic conditioning (0.50 [0.31, 0.82]), as was peak troponin release (standardized mean difference -0.28 [-0.47, -0.09]). Conclusion: There is no evidence that remote ischemic conditioning reduces mortality associated with ischemic events; nor does it reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. However, remote ischemic conditioning did reduce the incidence of peri-procedural myocardial infarctions, as well as the release of troponin.}, language = {en} } @article{MuellenbachRoewerKranke2013, author = {M{\"u}llenbach, Ralf Michael and Roewer, Norbert and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Quality Assurance Would Be Welcome}, series = {Deutsches {\"A}rzteblatt international}, volume = {110}, journal = {Deutsches {\"A}rzteblatt international}, number = {27-28}, doi = {10.3238/arztebl.2013.0485a}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-128844}, pages = {485}, year = {2013}, abstract = {No abstract available.}, language = {en} } @article{SaundersDavisKrankeetal.2018, author = {Saunders, Rhodri and Davis, Jason A. and Kranke, Peter and Weissbrod, Rachel and Whitaker, David K and Lightdale, Jenifer R}, title = {Clinical and economic burden of procedural sedation-related adverse events and their outcomes: analysis from five countries}, series = {Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management}, volume = {14}, journal = {Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management}, doi = {10.2147/TCRM.S154720}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-227508}, pages = {393-401}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Background: Studies have reported on the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs), but little is known about their impact on health care costs and resource use. Methods: Health care providers and payers in five countries were recruited for an online survey by independent administrators to ensure that investigators and respondents were blinded to each other. Surveys were conducted in the local language and began with a "screener" to ensure that respondents had relevant expertise and experience. Responses were analyzed using Excel and R, with the Dixon's Q statistic used to identify and remove outliers. Global and country-specific average treatment patterns were calculated via bootstrapping; costs were mean values. The sum product of costs and intervention probability gave a cost per AE. Results: Responses were received from 101 providers and 26 payers, the majority having. 5 years of experience. At a minimum, the respondents performed a total of 3,430 procedural sedations per month. All AEs detailed occurred in clinical practice in the last year and were reported to cause procedural delays and cancellations in some patients. Standard procedural sedation costs ranged from (sic)74 (Germany) to \$2,300 (US). Respondents estimated that AEs would increase costs by between 16\% (Italy) and 179\% (US). Hypotension was reported as the most commonly observed AE with an associated global mean cost (interquartile range) of \$43 (\$27-\$68). Other frequent AEs, including mild hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, mild oxygen desaturation, hypertension, and brief apnea, were estimated to increase health care spending on procedural sedation by \$2.2 billion annually in the US. Conclusion: All sedation-related AEs can increase health care costs and result in substantial delays or cancellations of subsequent procedures. The prevention of even minor AEs during procedural sedation may be crucial to ensuring its value as a health care service.}, language = {en} } @article{RueschEberhartWallenbornetal.2010, author = {Ruesch, Dirk and Eberhart, Leopold H. J. and Wallenborn, Jan and Kranke, Peter}, title = {Nausea and Vomiting After Surgery Under General Anesthesia An Evidence-Based Review Concerning Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-85847}, year = {2010}, abstract = {Background: The German-language recommendations for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV) have been revised by an expert committee. Major aspects of this revision are presented here in the form of an evidence-based review article. Methods: The literature was systematically reviewed with the goal of revising the existing recommendations. New evidence-based recommendations for the management of PONV were developed, approved by consensus, and graded according to the scheme of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Results: The relevant risk factors for PONV include female sex, nonsmoker status, prior history of PONV, motion sickness, use of opioids during and after surgery, use of inhalational anesthetics and nitrous oxide, and the duration of anesthesia. PONV scoring systems provide a rough assessment of risk that can serve as the basis for a riskadapted approach. Risk-adapted prophylaxis, however, has not been shown to provide any greater benefit than fixed (combination) prophylaxis, and PONV risk scores have inherent limitations; thus, fixed prophylaxis may be advantageous. Whichever of these two approaches to manage PONV is chosen, high-risk patients must be given multimodal prophylaxis, involving both the avoidance of known risk factors and the application of multiple validated and effective antiemetic interventions. PONV should be treated as soon as it arises, to minimize patient discomfort, the risk of medical complications, and the costs involved. Conclusion: PONV lowers patient satisfaction but is treatable. The effective, evidence-based measures of preventing and treating it should be implemented in routine practice.}, language = {en} } @article{KrankeGirardLavand’hommeetal.2013, author = {Kranke, Peter and Girard, Thierry and Lavand'homme, Patricia and Melber, Andrea and Jokinen, Johanna and Muellenbach, Ralf M. and Wirbelauer, Johannes and H{\"o}nig, Arnd}, title = {Must we press on until a young mother dies? Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in labour may not be suited as a "poor man's epidural"}, series = {BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth}, journal = {BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth}, doi = {10.1186/1471-2393-13-139}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-96262}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background The epidural route is still considered the gold standard for labour analgesia, although it is not without serious consequences when incorrect placement goes unrecognized, e.g. in case of intravascular, intrathecal and subdural placements. Until now there has not been a viable alternative to epidural analgesia especially in view of the neonatal outcome and the need for respiratory support when long-acting opioids are used via the parenteral route. Pethidine and meptazinol are far from ideal having been described as providing rather sedation than analgesia, affecting the cardiotocograph (CTG), causing fetal acidosis and having active metabolites with prolonged half-lives especially in the neonate. Despite these obvious shortcomings, intramuscular and intravenously administered pethidine and comparable substances are still frequently used in delivery units. Since the end of the 90ths remifentanil administered in a patient-controlled mode (PCA) had been reported as a useful alternative for labour analgesia in those women who either don't want, can't have or don't need epidural analgesia. Discussion In view of the need for conversion to central neuraxial blocks and the analgesic effect remifentanil has been demonstrated to be superior to pethidine. Despite being less effective in terms of the resulting pain scores, clinical studies suggest that the satisfaction with analgesia may be comparable to that obtained with epidural analgesia. Owing to this fact, remifentanil has gained a place in modern labour analgesia in many institutions. However, the fact that remifentanil may cause harm should not be forgotten when the use of this potent mu-agonist is considered for the use in labouring women. In the setting of one-to-one midwifery care, appropriate monitoring and providing that enough experience exists with this potent opioid and the treatment of potential complications, remifentanil PCA is a useful option in addition to epidural analgesia and other central neuraxial blocks. Already described serious consequences should remind us not refer to remifentanil PCA as a "poor man's epidural" and to safely administer remifentanil with an appropriate indication. Summary Therefore, the authors conclude that economic considerations and potential cost-savings in conjunction with remifentanil PCA may not be appropriate main endpoints when studying this valuable method for labour analgesia.}, 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{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} }