The German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON): rationale, study design and baseline characteristics

Schons M, Pilgram L, Reese J-P, et al. The German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON): rationale, study design and baseline characteristics. European Journal of Epidemiology . 2022.The German government initiated the Network University Medicine (NUM) in early 2020 to improve national research activities on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. To this end, 36 German Academic Medical Centers started to collaborate on 13 projects, with the largest being the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON). The NAPKON's goal is creating the most comprehensive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cohort in Germany. Within NAPKON, adult and pediatric patients are observed in three complementary cohort platforms (Cross-Sectoral, High-Resolution and Population-Based) from the initial infection until up to three years of follow-up. Study procedures comprise comprehensive clinical and imaging diagnostics, quality-of-life assessment, patient-reported outcomes and biosampling. The three cohort platforms build on four infrastructure core units (Interaction, Biosampling, Epidemiology, and Integration) and collaborations with NUM projects. Key components of the data capture, regulatory, and data privacy are based on the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research. By April 01, 2022, 34 university and 40 non-university hospitals have enrolled 5298 patients with local data quality reviews performed on 4727 (89%). 47% were female, the median age was 52 (IQR 36-62-) and 50 pediatric cases were included. 44% of patients were hospitalized, 15% admitted to an intensive care unit, and 12% of patients deceased while enrolled. 8845 visits with biosampling in 4349 patients were conducted by April 03, 2022. In this overview article, we summarize NAPKON's design, relevant milestones including first study population characteristics, and outline the potential of NAPKON for German and international research activities.Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04768998 . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04747366 . https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04679584. © 2022. The Author(s)

Enabling personalized perioperative risk prediction by using a machine-learning model based on preoperative data

Abstract Preoperative risk assessment is essential for shared decision-making and adequate perioperative care. Common scores provide limited predictive quality and lack personalized information. The aim of this study was to create an interpretable machine-learning-based model to assess the patient’s individual risk of postoperative mortality based on preoperative data to allow analysis of personal risk factors. After ethical approval, a model for prediction of postoperative in-hospital mortality based on preoperative data of 66,846 patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery between June 2014 and March 2020 was created with extreme gradient boosting. Model performance and the most relevant parameters were shown using receiver operating characteristic (ROC−) and precision-recall (PR-) curves and importance plots. Individual risks of index patients were presented in waterfall diagrams. The model included 201 features and showed good predictive abilities with an area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of 0.95 and an area under precision-recall curve (AUPRC) of 0.109. The feature with the highest information gain was the preoperative order for red packed cell concentrates followed by age and c-reactive protein. Individual risk factors could be identified on patient level. We created a highly accurate and interpretable machine learning model to preoperatively predict the risk of postoperative in-hospital mortality. The algorithm can be used to identify factors susceptible to preoperative optimization measures and to identify risk factors influencing individual patient risk

Trends and outcomes for non‑elective neurosurgical procedures in Central Europe during the COVID‑19 pandemic

The world currently faces the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Little is known about the efects of a pandemic on non-elective neurosurgical practices, which have continued under modifed conditions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This knowledge might be critical for the ongoing second coronavirus wave and potential restrictions on health care. We aimed to determine the incidence and 30-day mortality rate of various non-elective neurosurgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.A retrospective, multi-centre observational cohort study among neurosurgical centres within Austria, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland was performed. Incidence of neurosurgical emergencies and related 30-day mortality rates were determined for a period refecting the peak pandemic of the frst wave in all participating countries (i.e. March 16th–April 15th, 2020), and compared to the same period in prior years (2017, 2018, and 2019).A total of 4,752 emergency neurosurgical cases were reviewed over a 4-year period. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a general decline in the incidence of non-elective neurosurgical cases, which was driven by a reduced number of traumatic brain injuries, spine conditions, and chronic subdural hematomas. Thirty-day mortality did not signifcantly increase overall or for any of the conditions examined during the peak of the pandemic.The neurosurgical community in these three European countries observed a decrease in the incidence of some neurosurgical emergencies with 30-day mortality rates comparable to previous years (2017–2019). Lower incidence of neurosurgical cases is likely related to restrictions placed on mobility within countries, but may also involve delayed patient presentation.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCNon UBCReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctora

Treatments for intracranial hypertension in acute brain-injured patients: grading, timing, and association with outcome. Data from the SYNAPSE-ICU study

Purpose: Uncertainties remain about the safety and efficacy of therapies for managing intracranial hypertension in acute brain injured (ABI) patients. This study aims to describe the therapeutical approaches used in ABI, with/without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring, among different pathologies and across different countries, and their association with six months mortality and neurological outcome. Methods: A preplanned subanalysis of the SYNAPSE-ICU study, a multicentre, prospective, international, observational cohort study, describing the ICP treatment, graded according to Therapy Intensity Level (TIL) scale, in patients with ABI during the first week of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Results: 2320 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 55 (I-III quartiles = 39-69) years, and 800 (34.5%) were female. During the first week from ICU admission, no-basic TIL was used in 382 (16.5%) patients, mild-moderate in 1643 (70.8%), and extreme in 295 cases (eTIL, 12.7%). Patients who received eTIL were younger (median age 49 (I-III quartiles = 35-62) vs 56 (40-69) years, p < 0.001), with less cardiovascular pre-injury comorbidities (859 (44%) vs 90 (31.4%), p < 0.001), with more episodes of neuroworsening (160 (56.1%) vs 653 (33.3%), p < 0.001), and were more frequently monitored with an ICP device (221 (74.9%) vs 1037 (51.2%), p < 0.001). Considerable variability in the frequency of use and type of eTIL adopted was observed between centres and countries. At six months, patients who received no-basic TIL had an increased risk of mortality (Hazard ratio, HR = 1.612, 95% Confidence Interval, CI = 1.243-2.091, p < 0.001) compared to patients who received eTIL. No difference was observed when comparing mild-moderate TIL with eTIL (HR = 1.017, 95% CI = 0.823-1.257, p = 0.873). No significant association between the use of TIL and neurological outcome was observed. Conclusions: During the first week of ICU admission, therapies to control high ICP are frequently used, especially mild-moderate TIL. In selected patients, the use of aggressive strategies can have a beneficial effect on six months mortality but not on neurological outcome

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics : a prospective, international, cohort study

Background: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score <= 3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics: a prospective, international, cohort study

© 2020 British Journal of AnaesthesiaBackground: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19–1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score≤3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP