@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} } @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{KurrekMorganHowardetal.2015, author = {Kurrek, Matt M. and Morgan, Pamela and Howard, Steven and Kranke, Peter and Calhoun, Aaron and Hui, Joshua and Kiss, Alex}, title = {Simulation as a New Tool to Establish Benchmark Outcome Measures in Obstetrics}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {10}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0131064}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151646}, pages = {e0131064}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Background There are not enough clinical data from rare critical events to calculate statistics to decide if the management of actual events might be below what could reasonably be expected (i.e. was an outlier). Objectives In this project we used simulation to describe the distribution of management times as an approach to decide if the management of a simulated obstetrical crisis scenario could be considered an outlier. Design Twelve obstetrical teams managed 4 scenarios that were previously developed. Relevant outcome variables were defined by expert consensus. The distribution of the response times from the teams who performed the respective intervention was graphically displayed and median and quartiles calculated using rank order statistics. Results Only 7 of the 12 teams performed chest compressions during the arrest following the 'cannot intubate/cannot ventilate' scenario. All other outcome measures were performed by at least 11 of the 12 teams. Calculation of medians and quartiles with 95\% CI was possible for all outcomes. Confidence intervals, given the small sample size, were large. Conclusion We demonstrated the use of simulation to calculate quantiles for management times of critical event. This approach could assist in deciding if a given performance could be considered normal and also point to aspects of care that seem to pose particular challenges as evidenced by a large number of teams not performing the expected maneuver. However sufficiently large sample sizes (i.e. from a national data base) will be required to calculate acceptable confidence intervals and to establish actual tolerance limits.}, language = {en} } @article{MarxSchindlerMoschetal.2016, author = {Marx, Gernot and Schindler, Achim W. and Mosch, Christoph and Albers, Joerg and Bauer, Michael and Gnass, Irmela and Hobohm, Carsten and Janssens, Uwe and Kluge, Stefan and Kranke, Peter and Maurer, Tobias and Merz, Waltraut and Neugebauer, Edmund and Quintel, Michael and Senninger, Norbert and Trampisch, Hans-Joachim and Waydhas, Christian and Wildenauer, Rene and Zacharowski, Kai and Eikermann, Michaela}, title = {Intravascular volume therapy in adults guidelines from the association of the scientific medical societies in Germany}, series = {European Journal of Anaesthesiology}, volume = {33}, journal = {European Journal of Anaesthesiology}, number = {7}, doi = {10.1097/EJA.0000000000000447}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-188223}, pages = {488-521}, year = {2016}, abstract = {No abstract available.}, 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{SitterFroehlichKrankeetal.2023, author = {Sitter, Magdalena and Fr{\"o}hlich, Corinna and Kranke, Peter and Markus, Christian and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Rehn, Monika and Bartmann, Catharina and Frieauff, Eric and Meybohm, Patrick and Pecks, Ulrich and R{\"o}der, Daniel}, title = {ECMO-Therapie bei COVID-19-ARDS in der Schwangerschaft erm{\"o}glicht den Erhalt einer Schwangerschaft mit termingerechter Entbindung}, series = {Die Anaesthesiologie}, volume = {72}, journal = {Die Anaesthesiologie}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1007/s00101-022-01232-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-346762}, pages = {166-170}, year = {2023}, abstract = {No abstract available.}, language = {de} } @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{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{SitterSchlesingerReinholdetal.2022, author = {Sitter, Magdalena and Schlesinger, Tobias and Reinhold, Ann-Kristin and Scholler, Axel and Heymann, Christian von and Welfle, Sabine and Bartmann, Catharina and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Kleinschmidt, Stefan and Schneider, Sven and Gottschalk, Andr{\´e} and Greve, Susanne and Wermelt, Julius Z. and Wiener, Roland and Schulz, Frank and Chappell, Daniel and Brunner, Maya and Neumann, Claudia and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter}, title = {COVID-19 in der geburtshilflichen An{\"a}sthesie: Prospektive Erfassung von SARS-CoV-2-Infektionen zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt sowie des peripartalen Verlaufs SARS-CoV-2-positiver Schwangerer}, series = {Der Anaesthesist}, volume = {71}, journal = {Der Anaesthesist}, number = {6}, issn = {1432-055X}, doi = {10.1007/s00101-021-01068-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-264878}, pages = {452-461}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Hintergrund Im Rahmen der Pandemie des SARS-CoV-2-Virus erlangte das Patientenkollektiv der Schwangeren fr{\"u}h Aufmerksamkeit. Initial wurde angesichts sich fr{\"u}h abzeichnender Krankheitsf{\"a}lle bei j{\"u}ngeren Patienten mit einem erheblichen Aufkommen peripartal zu betreuender, COVID-19-positiver Schwangerer gerechnet. Ziel der Arbeit Diese Arbeit vermittelt einen Einblick in die SARS-CoV-2-Infektionszahlen im Rahmen der geburtshilflichen An{\"a}sthesie zu Beginn der Pandemie sowie w{\"a}hrend der zweiten Infektionswelle in Deutschland. Methoden {\"U}ber das COALA-Register (COVID-19 related Obstetric Anaesthesia Longitudinal Assessment-Registry) wurden sowohl von M{\"a}rz bis Mai 2020 als auch von Oktober 2020 bis Februar 2021 in Deutschland und der Schweiz w{\"o}chentlich prospektiv Daten zu Verdachts- und best{\"a}tigten SARS-CoV-2-F{\"a}llen bei Schwangeren zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt erhoben. Betrachtet wurden die Verteilung dieser auf die Anzahl der Geburten, Zentren und Erhebungswochen sowie m{\"u}tterliche Charakteristika und Krankheitsverl{\"a}ufe. Ergebnisse Neun Zentren haben im Verlauf 44 SARS-CoV-2-positive Schwangere zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt bei 7167 Geburten (0,6 \%) gemeldet (3 F{\"a}lle auf 2270 Geburten (0,4 \%) und 41 F{\"a}lle auf 4897 Geburten (0,8 \%)). Berichtet wurden 2 schwere COVID-19-Verl{\"a}ufe (n = 1 mit Todesfolge nach ECMO, n = 1 mit ECMO {\"u}berlebt). Bei 28 (68 \%) Patientinnen verlief die Infektion asymptomatisch. Ein Neugeborenes wurde im Verlauf positiv auf SARS-CoV‑2 getestet. Schlussfolgerung Mithilfe des Registers konnte das Auftreten von F{\"a}llen zu Beginn der Pandemie zeitnah eingesch{\"a}tzt werden. Es traten sporadisch Verdachtsf{\"a}lle bzw. best{\"a}tigte F{\"a}lle auf. Aufgrund fehlender fl{\"a}chendeckender Testung muss aber von einer Dunkelziffer asymptomatischer F{\"a}lle ausgegangen werden. W{\"a}hrend der zweiten Infektionswelle wurden 68 \% asymptomatische F{\"a}lle gemeldet. Jedoch kann es bei jungen, gesunden Patientinnen ohne das Vorliegen typischer Risikofaktoren zu schwerwiegenden Verl{\"a}ufen kommen.}, language = {de} }