Treating patients across European Union borders : an international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND In light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed. OBJECTIVES Assess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources. DESIGN A 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). SETTING Survey via a web-based platform. PATIENTS Respondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Responses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation. CONCLUSION Experts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems

Rise of public e-learning opportunities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic-induced curtailment of face-to-face courses, exemplified by epidural catheterization on YouTube.

Abstract Background In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, countless face-to-face events as well as medical trainings were cancelled or moved to online courses, which resulted in increased digitalization in many areas. In the context of medical education, videos provide tremendous benefit for visualizing skills before they are practised. Methods Based on a previous investigation of video material addressing epidural catheterization available on the YouTube platform, we aimed to investigate new content produced in the context of the pandemic. Thus, a video search was conducted in May 2022. Results We identified twelve new videos since the pandemic with a significant improvement in the new content in terms of procedural items (p = 0.03) compared to the prepandemic video content. Video content released in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic was more often created by private content creators and were significantly shorter in total runtime than those from university and medical societies (p = 0.04). Conclusion The profound changes in the learning and teaching of health care education in relation to the pandemic are largely unclear. We reveal improved procedural quality of predominantly privately uploaded content despite a shortened runtime compared to the prepandemic period. This might indicate that technical and financial hurdles to producing instructional videos by discipline experts have decreased. In addition to the teaching difficulties caused by the pandemic, this change is likely to be due to validated manuals on how to create such content. The awareness that medical education needs to be improved has grown, so platforms offer specialized sublevels for high-quality medical videos

High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients - a monocentric observational study

Background: Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used. Results: In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature. Conclusion: The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable

Electroencephalogram-Based Evaluation of Impaired Sedation in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The sedation management of patients with severe COVID-19 is challenging. Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) has already been used for sedation management before COVID-19 in critical care, but its applicability in COVID-19 has not yet been investigated. We performed this prospective observational study to evaluate whether the patient sedation index (PSI) obtained via pEEG may adequately reflect sedation in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Statistical analysis was performed by linear regression analysis with mixed effects. We included data from 49 consecutive patients. None of the patients received neuromuscular blocking agents by the time of the measurement. The mean value of the PSI was 20 (±23). The suppression rate was determined to be 14% (±24%). A deep sedation equivalent to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale of −3 to −4 (correlation expected PSI 25–50) in bedside examination was noted in 79.4% of the recordings. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the sedative dosages of propofol, midazolam, clonidine, and sufentanil (p < 0.01) and the sedation index. Our results showed a distinct discrepancy between the RASS and the determined PSI. However, it remains unclear to what extent any discrepancy is due to the electrophysiological effects of neuroinflammation in terms of pEEG alteration, to the misinterpretation of spinal or vegetative reflexes during bedside evaluation, or to other causes

Associated Factors of High Sedative Requirements within Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge global healthcare. Severely affected patients are often in need of high doses of analgesics and sedatives. The latter was studied in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in this prospective monocentric analysis. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients admitted between 1 April and 1 December 2020 were enrolled in the study. A statistical analysis of impeded sedation using mixed-effect linear regression models was performed. Overall, 114 patients were enrolled, requiring unusual high levels of sedatives. During 67.9% of the observation period, a combination of sedatives was required in addition to continuous analgesia. During ARDS therapy, 85.1% (n = 97) underwent prone positioning. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) was required in 20.2% (n = 23) of all patients. vv-ECMO patients showed significantly higher sedation needs (p < 0.001). Patients with hepatic (p = 0.01) or renal (p = 0.01) dysfunction showed significantly lower sedation requirements. Except for patient age (p = 0.01), we could not find any significant influence of pre-existing conditions. Age, vv-ECMO therapy and additional organ failure could be demonstrated as factors influencing sedation needs. Young patients and those receiving vv-ECMO usually require increased sedation for intensive care therapy. However, further studies are needed to elucidate the causes and mechanisms of impeded sedation

Safety and Efficiency of Low-Dose Spinal Analgesia Compared to Epidural Analgesia in Treatment of Pain during Labour: A Case Control Study

Background: The epidural catheter for analgesia has been used for decades and has become the gold standard in pain therapy for pregnant women in labour. However, procedural parameters such as time to pain relief and duration to implementation pose hurdles for patients shortly before delivery. Low-dose spinal analgesia (LDSA) is an alternative procedure that was investigated in the study with regard to patient satisfaction and complication rates compared to epidural catheter. Methods: In a retrospective monocentric study, a total of 242 patients receiving low-dose spinal analgesia or epidural catheters were evaluated using propensity score matching. Subjective patient satisfaction as well as complication rates were primarily analysed. We hypothesise that LDSA is a safe procedure and provides a similar level of satisfaction compared with the epidural catheter. For this purpose, both procedures were performed according to in-house standards and the patients were interviewed afterwards. Patients who required surgical delivery were excluded to prevent bias. Results: The LDSA was rated on average as very good [1.09 ± 0.311 vs. 1.07 ± 0.431] in terms of satisfaction by the patients compared to the epidural catheter without showing a significant difference (p = 0.653). Complications were in the low single-digit non-significant range for both procedures [6 (5%) vs. 7 (6%); p = 0.776]. The evaluation showed more perineal tears I° and II° in the low-dose spinal analgesia group [I°: 28 (23%) vs. 3 (2%); p p p = 0.005]. Conclusions: LDSA represents a low complication procedure for patients at the end of labour with a high satisfaction level. With the LDSA in the repertoire of pain relief during childbirth, it is possible to also achieve pain reduction for women with deliveries of high velocity without compromising patient satisfaction or perinatal morbidity

Entwicklung und Validierung einer Checkliste zur Bewertung von Videos zum Erlernen von Reanimationsmaßnahmen

Hintergrund: Gut durchgeführte Wiederbelebungsmaßnahmen können bei einem Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstand das Outcome verbessern. Um praktische Fähigkeiten zu erlernen, greifen Medizinstudierende oft auf Lehrvideos zurück. Studien zeigen jedoch häufig eine unzureichende Qualität der im Internet zur Verfügung gestellten Videos zu Reanimationsmaßnahmen. Eine Bewertung anhand einer validierten, auf den aktuellen „guidelines“ basierten Checkliste fehlt bisher. Ziel der Arbeit: Entwicklung und Validierung einer Checkliste zur Bewertung von Lehrvideos zur Reanimation. Material und Methoden: In einem Expertenworkshop erfolgte basierend auf den aktuellen „guidelines“ die Formulierung der Checklistenitems. Die Checkliste wurde in einem vierstufigen Reviewprozess von Notärzten getestet. Die Bewertungen wurden analysiert und die Items angepasst und spezifiziert. Nach dem Reviewprozess wurde die Checkliste an 74 Videos zur Reanimation angewendet. Ergebnisse: Die Checkliste umfasst 25 Items in vier Kategorien (initiale Maßnahmen, Thoraxkompression, AED-Nutzung, Atmung), die auf einer 3 stufigen Likert-Skala bewertet werden. 16 NotärztInnen nahmen an der Studie teil. Sie bewerteten jeweils durchschnittlich 9,3 ± 5,7 Videos. Die Reviewer stimmten in 65,1 ± 12,6 % der Fälle überein. Die höchsten Übereinstimmungen wurden im Unterthema AED erzielt, das Item „Beim Schock Patienten nicht berühren“ wies die höchste Übereinstimmung auf. Die Items der Kategorie Thoraxkompression wurden am häufigsten unterschiedlich bewertet. Diskussion: Es konnte erstmalig für den deutschsprachigen Raum eine Checkliste zur Bewertung von Lehrvideos zur Reanimation erstellt und validiert werden

Morbidity and mortality after anaesthesia in early life: results of the European prospective multicentre observational study, neonate and children audit of anaesthesia practice in Europe (NECTARINE)

Background: Neonates and infants requiring anaesthesia are at risk of physiological instability and complications, but triggers for peri-anaesthetic interventions and associations with subsequent outcome are unknown. Methods: This prospective, observational study recruited patients up to 60 weeks' postmenstrual age undergoing anaesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures from 165 centres in 31 European countries between March 2016 and January 2017. The primary aim was to identify thresholds of pre-determined physiological variables that triggered a medical intervention. The secondary aims were to evaluate morbidities, mortality at 30 and 90 days, or both, and associations with critical events. Results: Infants (n=5609) born at mean (standard deviation [sd]) 36.2 (4.4) weeks postmenstrual age (35.7% preterm) underwent 6542 procedures within 63 (48) days of birth. Critical event(s) requiring intervention occurred in 35.2% of cases, mainly hypotension (>30% decrease in blood pressure) or reduced oxygenation (SpO2 <85%). Postmenstrual age influenced the incidence and thresholds for intervention. Risk of critical events was increased by prior neonatal medical conditions, congenital anomalies, or both (relative risk [RR]=1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.28) and in those requiring preoperative intensive support (RR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41). Additional complications occurred in 16.3% of patients by 30 days, and overall 90-day mortality was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7-3.7%). Co-occurrence of intraoperative hypotension, hypoxaemia, and anaemia was associated with increased risk of morbidity (RR=3.56; 95% CI, 1.64-7.71) and mortality (RR=19.80; 95% CI, 5.87-66.7). Conclusions: Variability in physiological thresholds that triggered an intervention, and the impact of poor tissue oxygenation on patient's outcome, highlight the need for more standardised perioperative management guidelines for neonates and infants