Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (35)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (35)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (35)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (8)
- acute respiratory distress syndrome (3)
- ECMO-Therapie (2)
- Germany (2)
- critical care (2)
- perioperative care (2)
- postoperative nausea and vomiting (2)
- pregnancy (2)
- 6-percent hydroxyethyl starch (1)
- ARDS (1)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (35)
- Frauenklinik und Poliklinik (6)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (3)
- Kinderklinik und Poliklinik (3)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (3)
- Institut für Informatik (2)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral-, Gefäß- und Kinderchirurgie (Chirurgische Klinik I) (2)
- Institut für Experimentelle Biomedizin (1)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (1)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (1)
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 101003595 (1)
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.
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.
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.
Hintergrund
Im Rahmen der Pandemie des SARS-CoV-2-Virus erlangte das Patientenkollektiv der Schwangeren früh Aufmerksamkeit. Initial wurde angesichts sich früh abzeichnender Krankheitsfälle bei jüngeren 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 Anästhesie zu Beginn der Pandemie sowie während der zweiten Infektionswelle in Deutschland.
Methoden
Über das COALA-Register (COVID-19 related Obstetric Anaesthesia Longitudinal Assessment-Registry) wurden sowohl von März bis Mai 2020 als auch von Oktober 2020 bis Februar 2021 in Deutschland und der Schweiz wöchentlich prospektiv Daten zu Verdachts- und bestätigten SARS-CoV-2-Fällen bei Schwangeren zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt erhoben. Betrachtet wurden die Verteilung dieser auf die Anzahl der Geburten, Zentren und Erhebungswochen sowie mütterliche Charakteristika und Krankheitsverläufe.
Ergebnisse
Neun Zentren haben im Verlauf 44 SARS-CoV-2-positive Schwangere zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt bei 7167 Geburten (0,6 %) gemeldet (3 Fälle auf 2270 Geburten (0,4 %) und 41 Fälle auf 4897 Geburten (0,8 %)). Berichtet wurden 2 schwere COVID-19-Verläufe (n = 1 mit Todesfolge nach ECMO, n = 1 mit ECMO überlebt). 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 Fällen zu Beginn der Pandemie zeitnah eingeschätzt werden. Es traten sporadisch Verdachtsfälle bzw. bestätigte Fälle auf. Aufgrund fehlender flächendeckender Testung muss aber von einer Dunkelziffer asymptomatischer Fälle ausgegangen werden. Während der zweiten Infektionswelle wurden 68 % asymptomatische Fälle gemeldet. Jedoch kann es bei jungen, gesunden Patientinnen ohne das Vorliegen typischer Risikofaktoren zu schwerwiegenden Verläufen kommen.
(1) Background: Data on coronavirus 2 infection during pregnancy vary. We aimed to describe maternal characteristics and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 positive women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 during pregnancy and postpartum period based on data of a comprehensive German surveillance system in obstetric patients. (2) Methods: Data from COVID-19 Related Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Study (CRONOS), a prospective multicenter registry for SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women, was analyzed with respect to ICU treatment. All women requiring intensive care treatment for COVID-19 were included and compared regarding maternal characteristics, course of disease, as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes. (3) Results: Of 2650 cases in CRONOS, 101 women (4%) had a documented ICU stay. Median maternal age was 33 (IQR, 30–36) years. COVID-19 was diagnosed at a median gestational age of 33 (IQR, 28–35) weeks. As the most invasive form of COVID-19 treatment interventions, patients received either continuous monitoring of vital signs without further treatment requirement (n = 6), insufflation of oxygen (n = 30), non-invasive ventilation (n = 22), invasive ventilation (n = 28), or escalation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 15). No significant clinical differences were identified between patients receiving different forms of ventilatory support for COVID-19. Prevalence of preterm delivery was significantly higher in women receiving invasive respiratory treatments. Four women died of COVID-19 and six fetuses were stillborn. (4) Conclusions: Our cohort shows that progression of COVID-19 is rare in pregnant and postpartum women treated in the ICU. Preterm birth rate is high and COVID-19 requiring respiratory support increases the risk of poor maternal and neonatal outcome.
No abstract available.
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.
Background
The viral load and tissue distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remain important questions. The current study investigated SARS-CoV-2 viral load, biodistribution and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody formation in patients suffering from severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Methods
This is a retrospective single-center study in 23 patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. Data were collected within routine intensive care. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was assessed via reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Overall, 478 virology samples were taken. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody detection of blood samples was performed with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Results
Most patients (91%) suffered from severe ARDS during ICU treatment with a 30-day mortality of 30%. None of the patients received antiviral treatment. Tracheal aspirates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 100% of the cases, oropharyngeal swabs only in 77%. Blood samples were positive in 26% of the patients. No difference of viral load was found in tracheal or blood samples with regard to 30-day survival or disease severity. SARS-CoV-2 was never found in dialysate. Serologic testing revealed significantly lower concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing IgM and IgA antibodies in survivors compared to non-survivors (p = 0.009).
Conclusions
COVID-19 induced ARDS is accompanied by a high viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in tracheal aspirates, which remained detectable in the majority throughout intensive care treatment. Remarkably, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was never detected in dialysate even in patients with RNAemia. Viral load or the buildup of neutralizing antibodies was not associated with 30-day survival or disease severity.
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.
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.