Background Even though bleeding and thromboembolic events are major complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), data on the incidence of venous thrombosis (VT) and thromboembolism (VTE) under ECMO are scarce. This study analyzes the incidence and predictors of VTE in patients treated with ECMO due to respiratory failure. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients treated on ECMO in our center from 04/2010 to 11/2015. Patients with thromboembolic events prior to admission were excluded. Diagnosis was made by imaging in survivors and postmortem examination in deceased patients. Results Out of 102 screened cases, 42 survivors and 21 autopsy cases [mean age 46.0 ± 14.4 years; 37 (58.7 %) males] fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria were included. Thirty-four patients (54.0 %) underwent ECMO therapy due to ARDS, and 29 patients (46.0 %) with chronic organ failure were bridged to lung transplantation. Despite systemic anticoagulation at a mean PTT of 50.6 ± 12.8 s, [VT/VTE 47.0 ± 12.3 s and no VT/VTE 53.63 ± 12.51 s (p = 0.037)], VT and/or VTE was observed in 29 cases (46.1 %). The rate of V. cava thrombosis was 15/29 (51.7 %). Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism prevailed in deceased patients [5/21 (23.8 %) vs. 2/42 (4.8 %) (p = 0.036)]. In a multivariable analysis, only aPTT and time on ECMO predicted VT/VTE. There was no difference in the incidence of clinically diagnosed VT in ECMO survivors and autopsy findings. Conclusions Venous thrombosis and thromboembolism following ECMO therapy are frequent. Quality of anticoagulation and ECMO runtime predicted thromboembolic events. "

Background Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase morbidity and mortality of surgical patients, duration of hospital stay and costs. Postoperative atelectasis of dorsal lung regions as a common PPC has been described before, but its clinical relevance is insufficiently examined. Pulmonary electrical impedance tomography (EIT) enables the bedside visualization of regional ventilation in real-time within a transversal section of the lung. Dorsal atelectasis or effusions might cause a ventral redistribution of ventilation. We hypothesized the existence of ventral redistribution in spontaneously breathing patients during their recovery from abdominal and peripheral surgery and that vital capacity is reduced if regional ventilation shifts to ventral lung regions. Methods This prospective observational study included 69 adult patients undergoing elective surgery with an expected intermediate or high risk for PPCs. Patients undergoing abdominal and peripheral surgery were recruited to obtain groups of equal size. Patients received general anesthesia with and without additional regional anesthesia. On the preoperative, the first and the third postoperative day, EIT was performed at rest and during spirometry (forced breathing). The center of ventilation in dorso-ventral direction (COVy) was calculated. Results Both groups received intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation. Postoperative ventral redistribution of ventilation (forced breathing COVy; preoperative: 16.5 (16.0–17.3); first day: 17.8 (16.9–18.2), p < 0.004; third day: 17.4 (16.2–18.2), p = 0.020) and decreased forced vital capacity in percentage of predicted values (FVC%predicted) (median: 93, 58, 64%, respectively) persisted after abdominal surgery. In addition, dorsal to ventral shift was associated with a decrease of the FVC%predicted on the third postoperative day (r = − 0.66; p < 0.001). A redistribution of pulmonary ventilation was not observed after peripheral surgery. FVC%predicted was only decreased on the first postoperative day (median FVC%predicted on the preoperative, first and third day: 85, 81 and 88%, respectively). In ten patients occurred pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery also in two patients after peripheral surgery. Conclusions After abdominal surgery ventral redistribution of ventilation persisted up to the third postoperative day and was associated with decreased vital capacity. The peripheral surgery group showed only minor changes in vital capacity, suggesting a role of the location of surgery for postoperative redistribution of pulmonary ventilation.

Background The epidural route is still considered the gold standard for labour analgesia, although it is not without serious consequences when incorrect placement goes unrecognized, e.g. in case of intravascular, intrathecal and subdural placements. Until now there has not been a viable alternative to epidural analgesia especially in view of the neonatal outcome and the need for respiratory support when long-acting opioids are used via the parenteral route. Pethidine and meptazinol are far from ideal having been described as providing rather sedation than analgesia, affecting the cardiotocograph (CTG), causing fetal acidosis and having active metabolites with prolonged half-lives especially in the neonate. Despite these obvious shortcomings, intramuscular and intravenously administered pethidine and comparable substances are still frequently used in delivery units. Since the end of the 90ths remifentanil administered in a patient-controlled mode (PCA) had been reported as a useful alternative for labour analgesia in those women who either don’t want, can’t have or don’t need epidural analgesia. Discussion In view of the need for conversion to central neuraxial blocks and the analgesic effect remifentanil has been demonstrated to be superior to pethidine. Despite being less effective in terms of the resulting pain scores, clinical studies suggest that the satisfaction with analgesia may be comparable to that obtained with epidural analgesia. Owing to this fact, remifentanil has gained a place in modern labour analgesia in many institutions. However, the fact that remifentanil may cause harm should not be forgotten when the use of this potent mu-agonist is considered for the use in labouring women. In the setting of one-to-one midwifery care, appropriate monitoring and providing that enough experience exists with this potent opioid and the treatment of potential complications, remifentanil PCA is a useful option in addition to epidural analgesia and other central neuraxial blocks. Already described serious consequences should remind us not refer to remifentanil PCA as a “poor man’s epidural” and to safely administer remifentanil with an appropriate indication. Summary Therefore, the authors conclude that economic considerations and potential cost-savings in conjunction with remifentanil PCA may not be appropriate main endpoints when studying this valuable method for labour analgesia.

Background Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. Methods 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. Results Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO\(_{2}\)/FiO\(_{2}\) ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58–99). ICU survival was 31.4%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41–0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20%, 30%, and 38%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28–1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. Conclusions Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival.