Comparison of Circular and Parallel-Plated Membrane Lungs for Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Elimination

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) is an important technique to treat critical lung diseases such as exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and mild or moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study applies our previously presented ECCO2R mock circuit to compare the CO2 removal capacity of circular versus parallel-plated membrane lungs at different sweep gas flow rates (0.5, 2, 4, 6 L/min) and blood flow rates (0.3 L/min, 0.9 L/min). For both designs, two low-flow polypropylene membrane lungs (Medos Hilte 1000, Quadrox-i Neonatal) and two mid-flow polymethylpentene membrane lungs (Novalung Minilung, Quadrox-iD Pediatric) were compared. While the parallel-plated Quadrox-iD Pediatric achieved the overall highest CO2 removal rates under medium and high sweep gas flow rates, the two circular membrane lungs performed relatively better at the lowest gas flow rate of 0.5 L/min. The low-flow Hilite 1000, although overall better than the Quadrox i-Neonatal, had the most significant advantage at a gas flow of 0.5 L/min. Moreover, the circular Minilung, despite being significantly less efficient than the Quadrox-iD Pediatric at medium and high sweep gas flow rates, did not show a significantly worse CO2 removal rate at a gas flow of 0.5 L/min but rather a slight advantage. We suggest that circular membrane lungs have an advantage at low sweep gas flow rates due to reduced shunting as a result of their fiber orientation. Efficiency for such low gas flow scenarios might be relevant for possible future portable ECCO2R devices

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic : An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

Epitope mapping of new monoclonal antibodies recognizing distinct human FcRII (CD32) isoforms

Weinrich V, Sondermann P, Bewarder N, Wissel K, Frey J. Epitope mapping of new monoclonal antibodies recognizing distinct human FcRII (CD32) isoforms. HYBRIDOMA. 1996;15(2):109-116

In vivo and in vitro specificity of protein tyrosine kinases for immunoglobulin G receptor (Fc gamma RII) phosphorylation

Bewarder N, Weinrich V, Budde P, et al. In vivo and in vitro specificity of protein tyrosine kinases for immunoglobulin G receptor (Fc gamma RII) phosphorylation. MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY. 1996;16(9):4735-4743

Comparison of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality videos as substitute for in-hospital teaching during coronavirus lockdown: a survey with graduate medical students in Germany

As a consequence of the continued Covid-19 lockdown in Germany, in-hospital teaching for medical students was impossible. While lectures and other theoretical training were relatively easily converted into online sessions using platforms such as Moodle, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, this was not the case for practical skills and clinical interventions, such as bronchoscopy or colonoscopy. This study describes a workaround that was implemented at the Saarland University Hospital utilizing virtual reality equipment to convey the impressions of shadowing clinical procedures to the students without physical presence. To achieve this, 3D 180° videos of key clinical interventions of various internal medicine specialities were recorded, cut, and censored. The videos were uploaded to the e-learning YouTube channel of our institution and shared with the students via the private share function. The students could choose whether to use a VR-viewer to watch the videos immersively or to watch them without a viewer on a screen non-immersively. At the end of the course after 1 week, the students completed a questionnaire anonymously focusing on learning-success regarding the presented topics, a self-assessment, and an evaluation of the course. A total of 27 students watched the videos with a VR-Viewer and 74 watched non-immersively. Although the VR-viewer group self-assessed their expertise higher, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the learning-success test score. However, students in the VR-viewer group rated the learning atmosphere, comprehensibility, and overall recommendation of the course significantly higher. They also agreed significantly more to the statement, that they gained a better conception of the presented procedures, and that virtual reality might be an appropriate tool for online teaching. Video-assisted teaching facilitates learning and might be a valuable add-on to conventional teaching.Abbreviations: Covid-19: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; 3D: three-dimensional; 2D: Two-dimensional; VR: virtual realit