@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{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}
}