Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (52)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (52)
Document Type
- Journal article (50)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (52) (remove)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (52) (remove)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie (ab 2004) (12)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (8)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (7)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (5)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (5)
- Institut für Psychologie (4)
- Institut für Virologie und Immunbiologie (4)
- Institut für Hygiene und Mikrobiologie (3)
- Institut für Molekulare Infektionsbiologie (3)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (3)
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (3)
- Institut für Allgemeinmedizin (2)
- Institut für Experimentelle Biomedizin (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 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)
- Rudolf-Virchow-Zentrum (1)
- Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- ZAM 5-85018031 (1)
Background
Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who undergo surgery have impaired postoperative outcomes and increased mortality. Consequently, elective and semi-urgent operations on the increasing number of patients severely affected by COVID-19 have been indefinitely postponed.in many countries with unclear implications on disease progression and overall survival. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the establishment of a standardized screening program for acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is sufficient to ensure high-quality medical and surgical treatment of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients while minimizing in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Methods
The screening program comprised polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of nasopharyngeal swabs and a standardized questionnaire about potential symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 infection. All elective and emergency patients admitted to the surgical department of a tertiary-care hospital center in Lower Franconia, Germany, between March and May 2020 were included and their characteristics were recorded.
Results
Out of the study population (n = 657), 509 patients (77.5%) had at least one risk factor for a potentially severe course of COVID-19 and 164 patients (25%) were active smokers. The average 7-day incidence in Lower Franconia was 24.0/100,000 during the observation period. Preoperative PCR testing revealed four asymptomatic positive patients out of the 657 tested patients. No postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission could be detected.
Conclusion
The implementation of a standardized preoperative screening program to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients can ensure high-quality surgical care while minimizing infection risk for healthcare workers and potential in-hospital transmission.
Objective: In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated hospitalization of an overwhelming number of ventilator-dependent patients, medical and/or ethical patient triage paradigms have become essential. While guidelines on the allocation of scarce resources do exist, such work within the subdisciplines of intensive care (e.g., neurocritical care) remains limited.
Methods: A 16-item questionnaire was developed that sought to explore/quantify the expert opinions of German neurointensivists with regard to triage decisions. The anonymous survey was conducted via a web-based platform and in total, 96 members of the Initiative of German Neurointensive Trial Engagement (IGNITE)-study group were contacted via e-mail. The IGNITE consortium consists of an interdisciplinary panel of specialists with expertise in neuro-critical care (i.e., anesthetists, neurologists and neurosurgeons).
Results: Fifty members of the IGNITE consortium responded to the questionnaire; in total the respondents were in charge of more than 500 Neuro ICU beds throughout Germany. Common determinants reported which affected triage decisions included known patient wishes (98%), the state of health before admission (96%), SOFA-score (85%) and patient age (69%). Interestingly, other principles of allocation, such as a treatment of “youngest first” (61%) and members of the healthcare sector (50%) were also noted. While these were the most accepted parameters affecting the triage of patients, a “first-come, first-served” principle appeared to be more accepted than a lottery for the allocation of ICU beds which contradicts much of what has been reported within the literature. The respondents also felt that at least one neurointensivist should serve on any interdisciplinary triage team.
Conclusions: The data gathered in the context of this survey reveal the estimation/perception of triage algorithms among neurointensive care specialists facing COVID-19. Further, it is apparent that German neurointensivists strongly feel that they should be involved in any triage decisions at an institutional level given the unique resources needed to treat patients within the Neuro ICU.
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..
Purpose
The ongoing pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has stressed health systems worldwide. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) seem to be more prone to a severe course of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) due to comorbidities and an altered immune system. The study’s aim was to identify factors predicting mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with CKD.
Methods
We analyzed 2817 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients and identified 426 patients with pre-existing CKD. Group comparisons were performed via Chi-squared test. Using univariate and multivariable logistic regression, predictive factors for mortality were identified.
Results
Comparative analyses to patients without CKD revealed a higher mortality (140/426, 32.9% versus 354/2391, 14.8%). Higher age could be confirmed as a demographic predictor for mortality in CKD patients (> 85 years compared to 15–65 years, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 1.27–33.20, p = 0.025). We further identified markedly elevated lactate dehydrogenase (> 2 × upper limit of normal, aOR 23.21, 95% CI 3.66–147.11, p < 0.001), thrombocytopenia (< 120,000/µl, aOR 11.66, 95% CI 2.49–54.70, p = 0.002), anemia (Hb < 10 g/dl, aOR 3.21, 95% CI 1.17–8.82, p = 0.024), and C-reactive protein (≥ 30 mg/l, aOR 3.44, 95% CI 1.13–10.45, p = 0.029) as predictors, while renal replacement therapy was not related to mortality (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 0.68–1.93, p = 0.611).
Conclusion
The identified predictors include routinely measured and universally available parameters. Their assessment might facilitate risk stratification in this highly vulnerable cohort as early as at initial medical evaluation for SARS-CoV-2.
Background: Infections are a leading cause of refugee morbidity. Recent data on the rate of airway infections and factors influencing their spread in refugee reception centers is scarce. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study of de-identified medical records with a focus on respiratory infections in underage refugees was conducted at two large German refugee reception centers. Results: In total, medical data from n = 10,431 refugees over an observational period of n = 819 days was analyzed. Among pediatric patients (n = 4289), 55.3% presented at least once to the on-site medical ward with an acute respiratory infection or signs thereof. In 38.4% of pediatric consultations, acute airway infections or signs thereof were present. Airway infections spiked during colder months and were significantly more prevalent amongst preschool and resettled children. Their frequency displayed a positive correlation with the number of refugees housed at the reception centers. Conclusions: We show that respiratory infections are a leading cause for morbidity in young refugees and that their rate is influenced age, season, status, and residential density. This illustrates the need to protect refugee children from contracting airway infections which may also reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the current pandemic.
The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors.
Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms.
From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19.
COVID‐19, caused by the coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2, has become pandemic. A further level of complexity opens up as soon as we look at diseases whose pathogenesis and therapy involve different immunological signaling pathways, which are potentially affected by COVID‐19. Medical treatments must often be reassessed and questioned in connection with this infection.
This article summarizes the current knowledge of COVID‐19 in the light of major dermatological and allergological diseases. It identifies medical areas lacking sufficient data and draws conclusions for the management of our patients during the pandemic. We focus on common chronic inflammatory skin diseases with complex immunological pathogenesis: psoriasis, eczema including atopic dermatitis, type I allergies, autoimmune blistering and inflammatory connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, and skin cancers. Since several other inflammatory skin diseases display related or comparable immunological reactions, clustering of the various inflammatory dermatoses into different disease patterns may help with therapeutic decisions. Thus, following these patterns of skin inflammation, our review may supply treatment recommendations and thoughtful considerations for disease management even beyond the most frequent diseases discussed here.
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.