Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (50)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (50)
Document Type
- Journal article (48)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (50) (remove)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (50) (remove)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (12)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (8)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (6)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (5)
- Institut für Psychologie (4)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (4)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (4)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (3)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (3)
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (3)
- Institut für Allgemeinmedizin (2)
- Institut für Molekulare Infektionsbiologie (2)
- Kinderklinik und Poliklinik (2)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral-, Gefäß- und Kinderchirurgie (Chirurgische Klinik I) (2)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie (2)
- Neurochirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik (2)
- Center for Computational and Theoretical Biology (1)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken (1)
- Deutsches Zentrum für Herzinsuffizienz (DZHI) (1)
- Frauenklinik und Poliklinik (1)
- Graduate School of Life Sciences (1)
- Institut für Experimentelle Biomedizin (1)
- Institut für Geographie und Geologie (1)
- Institut für Humangenetik (1)
- Institut für Klinische Neurobiologie (1)
- Institut für Organische Chemie (1)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Neuroradiologie (ehem. Abteilung für Neuroradiologie) (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenkrankheiten, plastische und ästhetische Operationen (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Orthopädie (1)
- Medizinische Fakultät (1)
- Pathologisches Institut (1)
- Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- ZAM 5-85018031 (1)
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in large numbers of patients requiring critical care management. With the established association between severe respiratory virus infection and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (7.6% for COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA)), the pandemic places a significant number of patients at potential risk from secondary invasive fungal disease. We described a case of CAPA with substantial supporting mycological evidence, highlighting the need to employ strategic diagnostic algorithms and weighted definitions to improve the accuracy in diagnosing CAPA.
A viral infection involves entry and replication of viral nucleic acid in a host organism, subsequently leading to biochemical and structural alterations in the host cell. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, over-activation of the host immune system may lead to lung damage. Albeit the regeneration and fibrotic repair processes being the two protective host responses, prolonged injury may lead to excessive fibrosis, a pathological state that can result in lung collapse. In this review, we discuss regeneration and fibrosis processes in response to SARS-CoV-2 and provide our viewpoint on the triggering of alveolar regeneration in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.
Purpose
Audiology is an essential service for some patient groups and some interventions. This article sets forth experience-based recommendations for how audiological centers can continue to safely and effectively function during COVID-19.
Methods
The recommendations are the result of panel discussion and are based on the clinical experience of the panelists/authors.
Results
The recommendations cover which patient groups and which interventions should be treated when and whether this can be performed in the clinic or remotely; how to maintain the safety of workplace via optimizing patient flow within the clinic and the sanitation of rooms and equipment; and overcoming communication challenges that COVID-19 intensifies.
Conclusion
For essential audiological services to continue under COVID-19, safety measures must be implemented and maintained, and treatment and communication strategies must be adapted to offset communication difficulties due to personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing and to bolster patient confidence. In short, it is vital that staff feel safe, that patients either feel the clinic is safe enough to visit or that remote treatment may be an option, and that clinics and patients have a broad agreement on the urgency of any needed service. We hope that these recommendations help clinics effectively accomplish these goals.
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.
To slow down the spread of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, countries worldwide severely restricted public and social life. In addition to the physical threat posed by the viral disease (COVID-19), the pandemic also has implications for psychological well-being. Using a small sample (N = 51), we examined how Big Five personality traits relate to coping with contact restrictions during three consecutive weeks in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. We showed that extraversion was associated with suffering from severe contact restrictions and with benefiting from their relaxation. Individuals with high neuroticism did not show a change in their relatively poor coping with the restrictions over time, whereas conscientious individuals seemed to experience no discomfort and even positive feelings during the period of contact restrictions. Our results support the assumption that neuroticism is a vulnerability factor in relation to psychological wellbeing but also show an influence of contact restrictions on extraverted individuals.
While there is abounding literature on virus-induced pathology in general and coronavirus in particular, recent evidence accumulates showing distinct and deleterious brain affection. As the respiratory tract connects to the brain without protection of the blood–brain barrier, SARS-CoV-2 might in the early invasive phase attack the cardiorespiratory centres located in the medulla/pons areas, giving rise to disturbances of respiration and cardiac problems. Furthermore, brainstem regions are at risk to lose their functional integrity. Therefore, long-term neurological as well as psychiatric symptomatology and eventual respective disorders cannot be excluded as evidenced from influenza-A triggered post-encephalitic Parkinsonism and HIV-1 triggered AIDS–dementia complex. From the available evidences for coronavirus-induced brain pathology, this review concludes a number of unmet needs for further research strategies like human postmortem brain analyses. SARS-CoV-2 mirroring experimental animal brain studies, characterization of time-dependent and region-dependent spreading behaviours of coronaviruses, enlightening of pathological mechanisms after coronavirus infection using long-term animal models and clinical observations of patients having had COVID-19 infection are calling to develop both protective strategies and drug discoveries to avoid early and late coronavirus-induced functional brain disturbances, symptoms and eventually disorders. To fight SARS-CoV-2, it is an urgent need to enforce clinical, molecular biological, neurochemical and genetic research including brain-related studies on a worldwide harmonized basis.
Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) profoundly impacts hemostasis and microvasculature. In the light of the dilemma between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, in the present paper, we systematically investigate the prevalence, mortality, radiological subtypes, and clinical characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the literature by screening the PubMed database and included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and concomitant ICH. We performed a pooled analysis, including a prospectively collected cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients with ICH, as part of the PANDEMIC registry (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic Disorders Manifesting in Intensive Care of COVID-19). Results: Our literature review revealed a total of 217 citations. After the selection process, 79 studies and a total of 477 patients were included. The median age was 58.8 years. A total of 23.3% of patients experienced the critical stage of COVID-19, 62.7% of patients were on anticoagulation and 27.5% of the patients received ECMO. The prevalence of ICH was at 0.85% and the mortality at 52.18%, respectively. Conclusion: ICH in COVID-19 patients is rare, but it has a very poor prognosis. Different subtypes of ICH seen in COVID-19, support the assumption of heterogeneous and multifaceted pathomechanisms contributing to ICH in COVID-19. Further clinical and pathophysiological investigations are warranted to resolve the conflict between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in the future.
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.