Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (14)
Document Type
- Journal article (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (14) (remove)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (14) (remove)
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.
(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.
Mit dem Auftreten des SARS-CoV-2 Virus im Jahr 2020 war der Informationsgewinn für vulnerable Patientengruppen essentiell. Ziel dieser Arbeit war es maternale Charakteristika und das klinische Bild SARS-CoV-2 positiver Frauen mit Notwendigkeit einer intensivmedizinischen Behandlung während der Schwangerschaft und postpartal darzustellen, und diese Kohorte mit den SARS-CoV-2 positiven Schwangeren ohne intensivmedizinischen Handlungsbedarf zu vergleichen. Die Daten stammten aus dem deutschen CRONOS-Register, einem prospektiven, multizentrischen Register für SARS-CoV-2 positive schwangere Frauen. Eingeschlossen wurden alle schwangeren und postpartalen Frauen, die während ihrer SARS-CoV-2 Infektion auf eine ITS aufgenommen wurden. Diese wurden hinsichtlich maternaler Charakteristika, Krankheitsverlauf, sowie Outcomes verglichen.
In 101 von 2650 Fällen (4%) der Patientinnen des CRONOS-Registers, kam es zu einer Aufnahme auf die ITS. Als invasivste Form der COVID-19 Behandlung war bei 6 Patientinnen nur eine Überwachung notwendig, 30 Patientinnen benötigten eine Sauerstoffinsufflation, 22 wurden nicht-invasiv beatmet, 28 erhielten eine invasive Beatmung und bei 15 Frauen wurde die Behandlung zur ECMO-Therapie eskaliert. Es wurden keine klinisch signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen Patientinnen gefunden, die unterschiedliche Behandlungsformen benötigten. Die Gruppe der ITS und Non-ITS Patientinnen unterschied sich statistisch signifikant beim Einfluss von Alter, BMI bei Einschluss und der Herkunft. Die Prävalenz der Frühgeburtlichkeit war unter den invasiv behandelten Patientinnen signifikant höher und auch im Vergleich der ITS mit den Non-ITS Patientinnen zeigte sich ein signifikanter Unterschied. Vier Frauen verstarben an COVID-19 und sechs Feten der ITS-Gruppe waren Totgeburten.
Diese Kohorte zeigt, dass schwere COVID-19 Erkrankung bei schwangeren Frauen und Wöchnerinnen selten sind. Die Frühgeburtenrate ist hoch und COVID-19 mit Notwendigkeit einer Atemunterstützung erhöht das Risiko für ein schlechtes maternales und neonatales Outcome. Unter anderem ein höheres Alter und BMI sind mit einem höheren Risiko für eine ITS-Aufnahme verbunden.
Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03–1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71–0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51–2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.
COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten haben ein hohes thrombotisches Risiko. Die
Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit verschiedener Antikoagulationsschemata bei COVID-19
Patientinnen und Patienten sind unklar. Acht RCTs mit 5580 Patientinnen und Patienten
wurden identifiziert, wovon zwei RCTs Antikoagulation in halbtherapeutischer und sechs
RCTs Antikoagulation in therapeutischer Dosierung mit der Standard
Thromboembolieprophylaxe verglichen haben. Die halbtherapeutische Antikoagulation
kann wenig oder gar keinen Einfluss auf thrombotische Ereignisse oder Todesfälle haben
(RR 1,03, 95% KI 0,86-1,24), kann aber schwere Blutungen (RR 1,48, 95% KI 0,53-4,15) bei
mittelschweren bis schweren COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten verstärken.
Therapeutische Antikoagulation kann thrombotische Ereignisse oder den Tod bei
Patientinnen und Patienten mit mittelschwerem COVID-19 (RR 0,64, 95% KI 0,38-1,07)
verringern, kann aber bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit schwerer Erkrankung (RR 0,98,
95% KI 0,86-1,12) wenig oder keine Wirkung haben. Das Risiko schwerer Blutungen kann
unabhängig vom Schweregrad der Erkrankung zunehmen (RR 1,78, 95% KI 1,15-2,74). Die
Evidenzsicherheit ist immer noch gering. Mäßig betroffene COVID-19 Patientinnen und
Patienten können von einer therapeutischen Antikoagulation profitieren, jedoch ist das
Blutungsrisiko erhöht.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.
(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.
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.