[Challenges in visceral medicine during COVID-19]. / Herausforderungen der Viszeralmedizin bei COVID-19: Erfahrungen aus einem Krankenhaus der Grund- und Regelversorgung.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide dissemination of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a relevant problem for the German healthcare system and the whole of society within only a few weeks. Because visceral medicine is at the focal point many adjustments in procedures are necessary. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Necessary organizational structures and challenges in visceral medicine are described for urgent abdominal surgery after screening and for patients infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, an analysis of the current and relevant literature was performed and changes in the procedures in a hospital for basic and standard healthcare in Lower Rhine are described. RESULTS: This article describes the organizational structures and changes in a German hospital facing the crisis and management during the pandemic. These include establishment of a corona screening center at the hospital's main entrance and a multidisciplinary crisis management team. Specific internal guidelines were formulated for the management, confirmed by international experience and studies and regularly changed due to the requirements of the situation. CONCLUSION: In comparison to other countries the crisis reached hospitals in Germany with a clear delay and a relatively mild course. In order to be prepared for severely ill patients, adequate preparations could be made to meet the challenges on intensive care units, isolation wards, operating theaters and in endoscopy. The primary goal was the safeguarding of patients and employees. In the light of the pandemic medical rituals and habits need to be reconsidered.

Droperidol has comparable clinical efficacy against both nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol is commonly noted to be more effective at preventing postoperative nausea (PON) than vomiting (POV) and it is assumed to have a short duration of action. This may be relevant for clinical decisions, especially for designing multiple-drug antiemetic regimens. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a large multicentre trial. Within this trial, 1734 patients underwent inhalation anaesthesia and were randomly stratified to receive several antiemetic interventions according to a factorial design, one of which was droperidol 1.25 mg vs placebo. We considered differences to be significant when: (i) point estimates of one outcome are not within the limits of the confidence interval (CI) of the other outcome; and (ii) differences in risk ratio (also known as relative risks, RR) are at least 20%. RESULTS: Over 24 h, nausea was reduced from 42.9% in the control to 32.0% in the droperidol group, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 0.75 (95% CI from 0.66 to 0.84). Vomiting was reduced from 15.6% to 11.8%, and therefore associated with a similar RR of 0.76 (0.59-0.96). In the early postoperative period (0-2 h), droperidol prevented nausea and vomiting similarly, with an RR of 0.57 (0.46-0.69) for nausea and 0.56 (0.37-0.85) for vomiting. In the late postoperative period (2-24 h), the RR was again similar with 0.83 (0.72-0.96) for nausea compared with 0.89 (0.66-1.18) for vomiting but significantly less compared with the early postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that droperidol prevents PON and POV equally well, yet its duration of action is short-lived.

[A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting]. / Eine faktorielle Studie von 6 Interventionen zur Vermeidung von Ubelkeit und Erbrechen nach Narkosen Ergebnisse des "International Multicenter Protocol to assess the single and combined benefits of antiemetic strategies in a controlled clinical trial of a 2x2x2x2x2x2 factorial design" (IMPACT).

BACKGROUND: Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design, 5,199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of 6 prophylactic interventions: 1) 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 2) 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 3) 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; 4) propofol or a volatile anesthetic; 5) nitrogen or nitrous oxide; 6) remifentanil or fentanyl. The primary aim parameter was nausea and vomiting within 24 h after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. RESULTS: Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26%, propofol reduced the risk by 19%, and nitrogen by 12%. The risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics alone. All the interventions acted independently of each other and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. However, absolute risk reduction was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS: Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.

Specific induction of metallothionein in hairless mouse skin by zinc and dexamethasone.

The stimulation of metallothionein (MT) synthesis in mouse skin after i.p. treatments with various doses of dexamethasone or zinc was demonstrated. Specific MT mRNA induction was determined by Northern analysis. Zinc was a more efficient inducer than dexamethasone. The maximal MT accumulation occurs after i.p. injections of 50-100 mg dexamethasone/kg body weight. The possible role of MT in the skin is briefly discussed.