Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (15) (remove)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (15) (remove)
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.
Die Bauchlagerung von intubierten ARDS-Patient/innen mit einer schlechten Oxygenierung wird laut Leitlinie seit mehreren Jahren als supportive Therapiemaßnahme empfohlen. Im Rahmen der COVID-19 Pandemie wurde nun erstmalig die Bauchlagerung auch bei hypoxämischen, nicht-intubierten Patient/innen untersucht. Diese Fragestellung wurde in der vorliegenden Arbeit mittels einer systematischen Übersichtsarbeit betrachtet. Aufgrund der aktuellen Pandemiesituation wurden neben ARDS-Patient/innen im Allgemeinen insbesondere COVID-19 Patient/innen mit einem akuten Lungenversagen als Subgruppe untersucht.
Am 21.11.2020 wurde eine systematische Suche nach Studien in den Datenbanken MEDLINE, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register und Living Overview of the Evidence platform durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse wurden, wo möglich, in Form einer Meta-Analyse zusammengefasst, in Tabellen darstellt oder deskriptiv beschrieben. Das Risiko für Bias wurde jeweils für die eingeschlossenen kontrollierten Studien mittels ROBINS-I beurteilt. Die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz der gesamten Arbeit wurde mit Hilfe des GRADE-Ansatzes untersucht.
Insgesamt wurden 30 Studien eingeschlossen, davon 4 kontrollierte Studien, keine RCTs. In 3 der kontrollierten Studien wurde die Bauchlagerung bei COVID-19 Patient/innen untersucht, in einer bei Patient/innen mit einem anderweitig verursachten ARDS. Es ist unklar, ob die Bauchlagerung die Intubationsrate (RR = 0,92; 95% KI: 0,59 - 1,44; I² = 65%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz), die Mortalität (RR = 0,55; 95% KI: 0,23 - 1,30; I² = 60%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz) und die Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine Aufnahme auf die Intensivstation (RR = 0,94; 95% KI: 0,54 - 1,63; I2 = 71%; sehr niedrige Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Evidenz) verringern kann. Auch für die anderen betrachteten Endpunkte konnte kein signifikanter Effekt der Bauchlagerung nachgewiesen werden Im Vergleich der Subgruppen „Nicht-COVID-19“ (8 Studien) und „COVID-19“ (22 Studien) konnten in Bezug auf alle betrachteten Endpunkte keine relevanten Unterschiede festgestellt werden.
Insgesamt ist die Evidenz nicht ausreichend, um Vor- und Nachteile der Bauchlagerung für nicht-intubierte ARDS Patient/innen gegenüber der üblichen Rückenlagerung aufzuzeigen und diese für die Praxis zu empfehlen.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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: 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.
Mortality in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is high and pharmacological treatment strategies remain limited. Early-stage predictive biomarkers are needed to identify patients with a high risk of severe clinical courses and to stratify treatment strategies. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) was previously described as a potential predictor for the outcome of critically ill patients and for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a hallmark of severe COVID-19 disease. This prospective observational study evaluates the predictive potential of MIF for the clinical outcome after severe COVID-19 infection. Plasma MIF concentrations were measured in 36 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients over three days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Increased compared to decreased MIF was significantly associated with aggravated organ function and a significantly lower 28-day survival (sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score; 8.2 ± 4.5 to 14.3 ± 3, p = 0.009 vs. 8.9 ± 1.9 to 12 ± 2, p = 0.296; survival: 56% vs. 93%; p = 0.003). Arterial hypertension was the predominant comorbidity in 85% of patients with increasing MIF concentrations (vs. decreasing MIF: 39%; p = 0.015). Without reaching significance, more patients with decreasing MIF were able to improve their ARDS status (p = 0.142). The identified association between an early MIF response, aggravation of organ function and 28-day survival may open future perspectives for biomarker-based diagnostic approaches for ICU management of COVID-19 patients.