Impact of shift work and other work-related factors on anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein serum concentrations in healthcare workers after primary mRNA vaccination - a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knowing whether shift work negatively affects the immune system's response to COVID-19 vaccinations could be valuable for planning future vaccination campaigns for healthcare workers. We aimed to determine the impact of working late or night shifts on serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein immunoglobulin G (anti-S) antibody levels after primary SARS-CoV-2-mRNA vaccination. METHODS: To obtain detailed information on shift work, we sent a separate online questionnaire to 1475 eligible healthcare workers who participated in a prospective longitudinal study conducted in 15 healthcare institutions in Switzerland. We asked all vaccinated healthcare workers with available anti-S antibody levels after vaccination to complete a brief online survey on their working schedules within one week before and after primary mRNA vaccination. We used multivariate regression to evaluate the association between work shifts around primary vaccination and anti-S antibody levels. We adjusted for confounders already known to influence vaccine efficacy (e.g. age, sex, immunosuppression, and obesity) and for variables significant at the 0.05 alpha level in the univariate analyses. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 43% (n = 638). Ninety-eight responders were excluded due to unknown vaccination dates, different vaccines, or administration of the second dose shortly (within 14 days) after or before serologic follow-up. Of the 540 healthcare workers included in our analysis, 175 (32.4%) had worked at least one late or night shift within seven days before and/or after primary vaccination. In the univariate analyses, working late or night shifts was associated with a nonsignificant -15.1% decrease in serum anti-S antibody levels (p = 0.090). In the multivariate analysis, prior infection (197.2% increase; p <0.001) and immunisation with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (63.7% increase compared to the BNT162b2 vaccine; p <0.001) were the strongest independent factors associated with increased anti-S antibody levels. However, the impact of shift work remained statistically nonsignificant (-13.5%, p = 0.108). CONCLUSION: Working late or night shifts shortly before or after mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to significantly impact serum anti-S antibody levels. This result merits consideration since it supports flexible vaccination appointments for healthcare workers, including those working late or night shifts.

[Evaluation of the role of an advanced practice dietitian in the intensive care unit]. / Evaluation der Rolle einer Advanced Practice Dietitian auf der Intensivstation.

BACKGROUND: In Swiss intensive care units (ICUs), nutritional management is hardly or not at all supported or supervised by dietitians. Nutritional management in the ICU is mainly performed by ICU nursing staff and intensive care specialists. In 2022, the role of an advanced practice dietitian (APD) was newly defined, created, and implemented in a Swiss ICU as part of a pilot project. In contrast to other countries, APDs are still scarce in Switzerland. Evaluation of the APD role is essential to further define the position and adapt it to needs. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the impact of the APD role 8 months after implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was conducted via online survey in February and March 2023. A total of 34 members of the ICU team participated, including physicians (n = 11), nurses (n = 20), and speech therapists (n = 3). In addition to workload, years worked in the company, and shiftwork, questions were asked about the level of awareness of the new APD position, integration of the APD into the ICU team, and the impact of the APD on nutritional management and the situation of the participants, as well as regarding documentation and prescribing skills. A descriptive analysis of the data was carried out in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The majority are aware of the APD and consider her as part of the ICU team. From the treatment team's point of view, the quality of the nutritional care provided as by the APD has improved and there is added value for patients and the ICU team. The delegated prescribing competence seems to improve nutritional management noticeably and is perceived as helpful and relieving by a majority. How the position will develop in terms of the competence profile remains to be seen.

SARS-CoV-2 risk in household contacts of healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed whether the increased SARS-CoV-2 risk of healthcare workers (HCW) is carried on to their household contacts. Within a prospective HCW cohort, we assessed the SARS-CoV-2 risk of household contacts of HCW depending on the HCWs cumulative exposure to COVID-19 patients and identified factors influencing this association. METHODS: HCW aged ≥ 16 years from nine Swiss healthcare networks participated. HCW without any household contacts were excluded. For HCW, cumulative patient exposure (number of COVID-19 patient contacts times average contact duration during a 12-month follow-up) was calculated. During follow-up, HCW reported SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab results and positive swab results of their household contacts. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables associated with SARS-CoV-2 household positivity. RESULTS: Of 2406 HCW, 466 (19%) reported ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 positive household. In multivariable analysis, patient exposure of HCW (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.08 per category, 95% CI 1.04-1.12), household size (aOR 1.53 per household member, 95% CI 1.35-1.73) and having children (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.94) remained associated with household positivity. Vaccinated HCW had a lower risk (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77) of reporting a positive contact, as were those using respirator masks in contact with COVID-19 patients (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86). Among vaccinated HCW, delayed first vaccination was associated with increased household SARS-CoV-2 positivity (aOR 1.14 per month, 95% CI 1.08-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 positivity in household contacts of HCW increases with higher cumulative COVID-19 patient exposure of HCWs. Measures reducing the SARS-CoV-2 risk in HCW might indirectly reduce the infection risk of their households.

[Correlation of patient satisfaction with nurses' time spent at the bedside: A prospective observational study]. / Zusammenhang der Patientenzufriedenheit mit der Anwesenheitszeit Pflegender am Patientenbett.

Correlation of patient satisfaction with nurses' time spent at the bedside: A prospective observational study Abstract. Background: Patient satisfaction is of high importance in quality assurance in many hospitals. The existing shortage of nursing staff and the resulting additional workload for individual nurses reduce the time available for patient care. Aim: The aim of this study is to explore a possible relationship of patient satisfaction with the time spent by nurses at the bedside and the influence of other influencing predictors. Methods: In this observational study, nursing attendance time was collected using attendance records which were verified by digital call light logs, and then evaluated using a linear regression model including patient satisfaction. Results: The nursing attendance time showed no significant influence on "patient satisfaction" (p = 0.155). The most important variables influencing "patient satisfaction" were: "no previous hospital experience" (p = 0.001), "importance of care" (p < 0.001) and "Gender" (form male) (p = 0.001). Conclusions: The time spent by nurses at the patient's bedside is not considered decisive enough to have a clear positive influence on patient satisfaction. Adaptations in nursing care are recommended, which enable a holistic relationship building and goal-oriented nursing care that favours patient satisfaction.

Clinical symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection during the Omicron period in relation to baseline immune status and booster vaccination-A prospective multicentre cohort of health professionals (SURPRISE study).

The effects of different types of pre-existing immunity on the frequency of clinical symptoms caused by the SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection were prospectively assessed in healthcare workers during the Omicron period. Among 518 participants, hybrid immunity was associated with symptom reduction for dizziness, muscle or limb pain and headache as compared to vaccination only. Moreover, the frequencies of dizziness, cough and muscle or limb pain were lower in participants who had received a booster vaccine dose. Thus, hybrid immunity appeared to be superior in preventing specific symptoms during breakthrough infection compared to vaccination alone. A booster vaccine dose conferred additional symptom reduction.

Post-Acute Sequelae After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection by Viral Variant and Vaccination Status: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and reduce the burden of PASC. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis (May/June 2022) within a prospective multicenter healthcare worker (HCW) cohort in north-eastern Switzerland. HCWs were stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. HCWs without positive swab and with negative serology served as controls. The sum of 18 self-reported PASC symptoms was modeled with univariable and multivariable negative-binomial regression to analyze the association of mean symptom number with viral variant and vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 2912 participants (median age: 44 years; 81.3% female), PASC symptoms were significantly more frequent after wild-type infection (estimated mean symptom number: 1.12; P < .001; median time since infection: 18.3 months), after Alpha/Delta infection (0.67 symptoms; P < .001; 6.5 months), and after Omicron BA.1 infections (0.52 symptoms; P = .005; 3.1 months) versus uninfected controls (0.39 symptoms). After Omicron BA.1 infection, the estimated mean symptom number was 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals versus 0.71 with 1-2 vaccinations (P = .028) and 0.49 with ≥3 prior vaccinations (P = .30). Adjusting for confounders, only wild-type (adjusted rate ratio [aRR]: 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infections (aRR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.10-3.46) were significantly associated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Previous infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for PASC symptoms among our HCWs. Vaccination before Omicron BA.1 infection was not associated with a clear protective effect against PASC symptoms in this population.

Risk and symptoms of COVID-19 in health professionals according to baseline immune status and booster vaccination during the Delta and Omicron waves in Switzerland-A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about protection conferred by previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or vaccination against emerging viral variants allows clinicians, epidemiologists, and health authorities to predict and reduce the future Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden. We investigated the risk and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 (re)infection and vaccine breakthrough infection during the Delta and Omicron waves, depending on baseline immune status and subsequent vaccinations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort performed between August 2020 and March 2022, we recruited hospital employees from ten acute/nonacute healthcare networks in Eastern/Northern Switzerland. We determined immune status in September 2021 based on serology and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections/vaccinations: Group N (no immunity); Group V (twice vaccinated, uninfected); Group I (infected, unvaccinated); Group H (hybrid: infected and ≥1 vaccination). Date and symptoms of (re)infections and subsequent (booster) vaccinations were recorded until March 2022. We compared the time to positive SARS-CoV-2 swab and number of symptoms according to immune status, viral variant (i.e., Delta-dominant before December 27, 2021; Omicron-dominant on/after this date), and subsequent vaccinations, adjusting for exposure/behavior variables. Among 2,595 participants (median follow-up 171 days), we observed 764 (29%) (re)infections, thereof 591 during the Omicron period. Compared to group N, the hazard ratio (HR) for (re)infection was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for V, 0.25 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.001) for I, and 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, p < 0.001) for H in the Delta period. HRs substantially increased during the Omicron period for all groups; in multivariable analyses, only belonging to group H was associated with protection (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.77, p = 0.001); booster vaccination was associated with reduction of breakthrough infection risk in groups V (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85, p = 0.001) and H (aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00, p = 0.048), largely observed in the early Omicron period. Group H (versus N, risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, p = 0.021) and participants with booster vaccination (versus nonboosted, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88, p < 0.001) reported less symptoms during infection. Important limitations are that SARS-CoV-2 swab results were self-reported and that results on viral variants were inferred from the predominating strain circulating in the community at that time, rather than sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that hybrid immunity and booster vaccination are associated with a reduced risk and reduced symptom number of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. For previously noninfected individuals, booster vaccination might reduce the risk of symptomatic Omicron infection, although this benefit seems to wane over time.

Impact of respirator versus surgical masks on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in healthcare workers: a prospective multicentre cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) versus surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled HCW from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferentially worn mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures. The impact of FFP2 on (1) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and (2) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users; seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR 10.1, 95% CI 7.5-13.5; aOR 5.0, 95% CI 3.9-6.5). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (> 20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0.7 for positive swab, 95% CI 0.5-0.8; aOR 0.6 for seroconversion, 95% CI 0.4-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients.

Symptoms Compatible With Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) in Healthcare Workers With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection-Results of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The burden of long-term symptoms (ie, long COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long COVID are assessed. METHODS: Participants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCWs with positive NPS, seropositive HCWs without positive NPS (presumable asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. The effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-spike protein antibodies (anti-S) was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence. RESULTS: Of 3334 HCWs (median, 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCWs with positive NPS more frequently reported ≥1 symptom compared with controls (73% vs 52%, P < .001); seropositive HCWs without positive NPS did not score higher than controls (58% vs 52%, P = .13), although impaired taste/olfaction (16% vs 6%, P < .001) and hair loss (17% vs 10%, P = .004) were more common. Exhaustion/burnout was reported by 24% of negative controls. Many symptoms remained elevated in those diagnosed >6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive HCWs without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in noninfected HCWs. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19.

Impact of baseline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status on syndromic surveillance and the risk of subsequent COVID-19-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus. METHODS: Baseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. RESULTS: A total of 4812 HCW participated, wherein 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analyzed 107,807 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P = 0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2712 HCW with ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2645 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results. CONCLUSIONS: Having SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least 8 months.

Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers - A multicentre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. METHODS: Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33-106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8). DISCUSSION: Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.

Review of evolution and current status of protein requirements and provision in acute illness and critical care.

Nutrition therapy, by enteral, parenteral, or both routes combined, is a key component of the management of critically ill, surgical, burns, and oncology patients. Established evidence indicates overfeeding (provision of excessive calories) results in increased risk of infection, morbidity, and mortality. This has led to the practice of "permissive underfeeding" of calories; however, this can often lead to inadequate provision of guideline-recommended protein intakes. Acutely ill patients requiring nutritional therapy have high protein requirements, and studies demonstrate that provision of adequate protein can result in reduced mortality and improvement in quality of life. However, a significant challenge to adequate protein delivery is the current lack of concentrated protein solutions. Patients often have fluid administration restrictions and existing protein solutions are frequently not sufficiently concentrated to deliver a patient's protein requirements. This has led to the development of new enteral and parenteral nutrition solutions incorporating higher levels of protein in smaller volumes. This review article summarizes current evidence supporting the role of higher protein intakes, especially during the early phases of nutrition therapy in acute illness, methods for assessing protein requirements, as well as, the currently available high-protein enteral and parenteral nutrition solutions. There is sufficient evidence (albeit limited from true randomized, controlled studies) to indicate that earlier provision of guideline-recommended protein intakes may be key to improving patient outcomes and that nutritional therapy that tailors caloric and protein intake to the patients' needs should be considered a desired standard of care.

Meeting nutritional targets of critically ill patients by combined enteral and parenteral nutrition: review and rationale for the EFFORTcombo trial.

While medical nutrition therapy is an essential part of the care for critically ill patients, uncertainty exists about the right form, dosage, timing and route in relation to the phases of critical illness. As enteral nutrition (EN) is often withheld or interrupted during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay, combined EN and parenteral nutrition (PN) may represent an effective and safe option to achieve energy and protein goals as recommended by international guidelines. We hypothesise that critically ill patients at high nutritional risk may benefit from such a combined approach during their stay on the ICU. Therefore, we aim to test if an early combination of EN and high-protein PN (EN+PN) is effective in reaching energy and protein goals in patients at high nutritional risk, while avoiding overfeeding. This approach will be tested in the here-presented EFFORTcombo trial. Nutritionally high-risk ICU patients will be randomised to either high (≥2·2 g/kg per d) or low protein (≤1·2 g/kg per d). In the high protein group, the patients will receive EN+PN; in the low protein group, patients will be given EN alone. EN will be started in accordance with international guidelines in both groups. Efforts will be made to reach nutrition goals within 48-96 h. The efficacy of the proposed nutritional strategy will be tested as an innovative approach by functional outcomes at ICU and hospital discharge, as well as at a 6-month follow-up.

Intensive Care in Traumatic Brain Injury Including Multi-Modal Monitoring and Neuroprotection.

Moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries (TBI) require treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in close collaboration of a multidisciplinary team consisting of different medical specialists such as intensivists, neurosurgeons, neurologists, as well as ICU nurses, physiotherapists, and ergo-/logotherapists. Major goals include all measurements to prevent secondary brain injury due to secondary brain insults and to optimize frame conditions for recovery and early rehabilitation. The distinction between moderate and severe is frequently done based on the Glascow Coma Scale and therefore often is just a snapshot at the early time of assessment. Due to its pathophysiological pathways, an initially as moderate classified TBI may need the same sophisticated surveillance, monitoring, and treatment as a severe form or might even progress to a severe and difficult to treat affection. As traumatic brain injury is rather a syndrome comprising a range of different affections to the brain and as, e.g., age-related comorbidities and treatments additionally may have a great impact, individual and tailored treatment approaches based on monitoring and findings in imaging and respecting pre-injury comorbidities and their therapies are warranted.

[Minor Head Injury ­ a Silent Epidemic]. / Mildes Schädel-Hirn-Trauma - eine stille Epidemie.

The vast majority out of the 20 000 patients annually hospitalized after sustaining a head injury belong to the minor head injury/cerebral concussion continuum. Fortunately, most of the patients show full recovery after days to weeks. However, about 15 % of these patients suffer from prolonged up to permanent sequels potentially impairing their quality of life to a considerable extent. This especially holds true for those who suffer from recurrent minor head injuries (i.e. victims from contact sport accidents). Unfortunately, many of these patients are never diagnosed in an appropriate way and therefore looked at as hypochondriacs or simulants. This prevents adequate rehabilitation and support. This review aims to present current knowledge about pathophysiology and clinical features of minor head injuries and to give some information about diagnostics and treatment according to current guidelines.

Safety and efficacy of regional citrate anticoagulation in continuous venovenous hemodialysis in the presence of liver failure: the Liver Citrate Anticoagulation Threshold (L-CAT) observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) for continuous renal replacement therapy is widely used in intensive care units (ICUs). However, concern exists about the safety of citrate in patients with liver failure (LF). The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of RCA in ICU patients with varying degrees of impaired liver function. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective, observational study, 133 patients who were treated with RCA and continuous venovenous hemodialysis (RCA-CVVHD) were included. Endpoints for safety were severe acidosis or alkalosis (pH ≤7.2 or ≥7.55, respectively) and severe hypo- or hypercalcemia (ionized calcium ≤0.9 or ≥1.5 mmol/L, respectively) of any cause. The endpoint for efficacy was filter lifetime. For analysis, patients were stratified into three predefined liver function or LF groups according to their baseline serum bilirubin level (normal liver function ≤2 mg/dl, mild LF >2 to ≤7 mg/dl, severe LF >7 mg/dl). RESULTS: We included 48 patients with normal liver function, 43 with mild LF, and 42 with severe LF. LF was predominantly due to ischemia (39 %) or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (27 %). The frequency of safety endpoints in the three patient strata did not differ: severe alkalosis (normal liver function 2 %, mild LF 0 %, severe LF 5 %; p = 0.41), severe acidosis (normal liver function 13 %, mild LF 16 %, severe LF 14 %; p = 0.95), severe hypocalcemia (normal liver function 8 %, mild LF 14 %, severe LF 12 %; p = 0.70), and severe hypercalcemia (0 % in all strata). Only three patients showed signs of impaired citrate metabolism. Overall filter patency was 49 % at 72 h. After censoring for stop of the treatment due to non-clotting causes, estimated 72-h filter survival was 96 %. CONCLUSIONS: RCA-CVVHD can be safely used in patients with LF. The technique yields excellent filter patency and thus can be recommended as first-line anticoagulation for the majority of ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry identifier: ISRCTN92716512 . Date assigned: 4 December 2008.