[Prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults : Update on the physiological effects, indications and implementation]. / Bauchlagerung beim akuten Lungenversagen des Erwachsenen : Update zu den physiologischen Effekten, den Indikationen und der Durchführung.

The prone position is an immediately available and easily implemented procedure that was introduced more than 50 years ago as a method for improvement of gas exchange in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In the meantime, a survival advantage could also be shown in patients with severe ARDS, which led to the recommendation of the prone position for treatment of severe ARDS by expert consensus and specialist society guidelines. The continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic moved the prone position to the forefront of medicine, including the widespread implementation of the prone position for awake, spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency. The survival advantage is possible due to a reduction of the ventilator-associated lung damage. In this article, the physiological effects, data on clinical results, practical considerations and open questions with respect to the prone position are discussed.

The current state of intensive care unit discharge practices - Results of an international survey study.

Background: Increasing pressure on limited intensive care capacities often requires a subjective assessment of a patient's discharge readiness in the absence of established Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) guidelines. To avoid suboptimal care transitions, it is important to define clear guidelines for the admission and discharge of intensive care patients and to optimize transfer processes between the intensive care unit (ICU) and lower care levels. To achieve these goals, structured insights into usual ICU discharge and transfer practices are essential. This study aimed to generate these insights by focusing on involved stakeholders, established processes, discharge criteria and tools, relevant performance metrics, and current barriers to a timely and safe discharge. Method: In 2022, a structured, web-based, anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted, aimed at practicing ICU physicians, nurses, and bed coordinators. The survey consisted of 29 questions (open, closed, multiple choice, and scales) that were divided into thematic blocks. The study was supported by several national and international societies for intensive care medicine and nursing. Results: A total of 219 participants from 40 countries (105 from Germany) participated in the survey. An overload of acute care resources with ~90% capacity utilization in the ICU and the general ward (GW) leads to not only premature but also delayed patient transfers due to a lack of available ward and intermediate care (IMC) beds. After multidisciplinary rounds within the intensive care team, the ICU clinician on duty usually makes the final transfer decision, while one-third of the panel coordinates discharge decisions across departmental boundaries. By the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, half of the hospitals had implemented ADT policies. Among these hospitals, nearly one-third of the hospitals had specific transfer criteria established, consisting primarily of vital signs and laboratory data, patient status and autonomy, and organization-specific criteria. Liaison nurses were less common but were ranked right after the required IMC capacities to bridge the care gap between the ICU and normal wards. In this study, 80% of the participants suggested that transfer planning would be easier if there was good transparency regarding the capacity utilization of lower care levels, a standardized transfer process, and improved interdisciplinary communication. Conclusion: To improve care transitions, transfer processes should be managed proactively across departments, and efforts should be made to identify and address care gaps.

Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in critically ill cirrhotic patients: a post-hoc analysis of the EUROBACT-2 international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections are common in the intensive care unit (ICU) and have a high mortality rate. Patients with cirrhosis are especially susceptible to infections, yet there is a knowledge gap in the epidemiological distinctions in hospital-acquired bloodstream infections between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients in the ICU. It has been suggested that cirrhotic patients, present a trend towards more gram-positive infections, and especially enterococcal infections. This study aims to describe epidemiological differences in hospital-acquired bloodstream infections between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients hospitalized in the ICU regarding infection sources, microorganisms and mortality. METHODS: Using prospective Eurobact-2 international cohort study data, we compared hospital-acquired bloodstream infections sources and microorganisms in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. The association between Enterococcus faecium and cirrhosis was studied using a multivariable mixed logistic regression. The association between cirrhosis and mortality was assessed by a multivariable frailty Cox model. RESULTS: Among the 1059 hospital-acquired bloodstream infections patients included from 101 centers, 160 had cirrhosis. Hospital-acquired bloodstream infection source in cirrhotic patients was primarily abdominal (35.6%), while it was pulmonary (18.9%) for non-cirrhotic (p < 0.01). Gram-positive hospital-acquired bloodstream infections accounted for 42.3% in cirrhotic patients compared to 33.2% in non-cirrhotic patients (p = 0.02). Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in cirrhotic patients were most frequently caused by Klebsiella spp (16.5%), coagulase-negative Staphylococci (13.7%) and E. faecium (11.5%). E. faecium bacteremia was more frequent in cirrhotic patients (11.5% versus 4.5%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for possible confounding factors, cirrhosis was associated with higher E. faecium hospital-acquired bloodstream infections risk (Odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.5, p < 0.01). Cirrhotic patients had increased mortality compared to non-cirrhotic patients (Hazard Ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.01-1.7, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill cirrhotic patients with hospital-acquired bloodstream infections exhibit distinct epidemiology, with more Gram-positive infections and particularly Enterococcus faecium.