Standardized Solutions of Catecholamines in Intensive Care Medicine: Application, Safety and Economic Aspects.

Background/Objectives: Catecholamines are among those agents that are indispensable in modern intensive care medicine. The rapid availability of hygienically impeccable and correctly concentrated injectable solutions, e.g., for syringe pumps, is becoming more and more important. However, little research has been conducted regarding how the use of catecholamines is distributed in different wards and what options can be used to achieve optimal availability. Methods: In a retrospective monocentric study from 2019 to 2022, all continuously applied catecholamines in intensive care units (ICU) and intermediate care units (IMC) were investigated. The focus was on potential optimization by utilizing manufactured ready-to-administer solutions in the context of the economization of patient care. Results: Norepinephrine syringes represented 81% of all syringes administered, appearing to be the most frequently used on all wards. Production by the in-house pharmacy showed both financial advantages and an increase in patient safety compared to syringes produced at the bedside. Discussion: Increasing numbers of critically ill patients coupled with growing staff shortages and an increased awareness of safety requirements are driving the move towards ready-to-use and ready-to-administer solutions in critical care medicine. In-house manufacturing by hospital pharmacies can be a promising option to optimize processes and improve the economics of patient care. Conclusions: Individual calculations of the required catecholamine preparations with regard to possible economic advantages should be carried out in hospitals. In particular, in-house production of ready-to-use and ready-to-administer preparations could significantly increase patient safety and seems to be economically viable.

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring. RESULTS: We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Bleeding Complications in COVID-19 Critically Ill ARDS Patients Receiving VV-ECMO Therapy.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) therapy is rapidly expanding worldwide, yet this therapy has a serious risk of bleeding. Whether coagulation-activating viral infections such as COVID-19 may have an impact on the risk of bleeding is largely unknown. This study conducted a monocentric investigation of severely affected COVID-19 patients receiving VV-ECMO therapy with regard to the occurrence and possible influences of minor and major bleeding and transfusion requirements. Among the 114 included study patients, we were able to assess more than 74,000 h of VV-ECMO therapy. In these, 103 major bleeding events and 2283 minor bleeding events were detected. In total, 1396 red blood concentrates (RBCs) were administered. A statistically significant correlation with the applied anticoagulation or demographic data of the patients was not observed. Contrary to the frequently observed thromboembolic complications among COVID-19 patients, patients with VV-ECMO therapy, even under low-dose anticoagulation, show a distinct bleeding profile, especially of minor bleeding, with a substantial need for blood transfusions. COVID-19 patients show a tendency to have frequent bleeding and require repeated RBC transfusions during VV-ECMO. This fact might not be solely explained by the mechanical alteration of ECMO or anticoagulation.

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 < 0.001-II°: 30 (25%) vs. 2 (2%); p < 0.001]. Neonatal parameters differed significantly only in umbilical cord base excess and umbilical cord venous pH [-5.40 vs. -6.40; 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.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in veno-venous-ECMO patients-A retrospective study on incidence, causes and outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac arrest in a modern intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with poor outcome although optimal resources are present at all times. Data on cardiac arrest (CA) of the increasing cohort of patients with veno-venous-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) are not available. Due to the highly invasive nature of this procedure, other incidences and causes of cardiac arrest are expected when compared to the ICU population without ECMO. This study focuses on cardiac arrest under VV-ECMO treatment. METHODS: Retrospective single-center observational study including all VV-ECMO patients from 1st January 2019 until 31st March 2022. Primary focus of this study was number and causes for CA during VV-ECMO treatment. Secondary endpoints were treatment procedure, complications and outcome. RESULTS: 140 patients were treated with VV-ECMO in the study period. Of those, 23 patients had 29 CA with need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during VV-ECMO treatment. Nearly half of all CA (48%; n = 14) occurred during medical procedures and 21% (n = 6) were device related. Pulseless electric activity (PEA) was the most common rhythm upon CPR initiation (72%). ROSC was achieved in 86%, two CA (6.9%) resulted in extracorporeal CPR. Survival to hospital discharge was 13% following CPR. CONCLUSION: CA occurs in over 15% of all patients treated with a VV-ECMO. Medical procedures during VV-ECMO are associated with a high risk of CA and should be planned with care. Also, the rate of ROSC was very high, only a small number of patients survived the overall VV-ECMO treatment course.

Detecting Sepsis in Patients with Severe Subarachnoid Hemorrhage during Critical Care.

Introduction: Sepsis and septic shock continue to have a very high mortality rate. Therefore, the last consensus-based sepsis guideline introduced the sepsis related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to ensure a rapid diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. In neurosurgical patients, especially those patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), there are considerable difficulties in interpreting the SOFA score. Therefore, our study was designed to evaluate the applicability of the SOFA for critical care patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Methods: Our retrospective monocentric study was registered (NCT05246969) and approved by the local ethics committee (# 211/18). Patients admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery at the Frankfurt University Hospital were enrolled during the study period. Results: We included 57 patients with 85 sepsis episodes of which 141 patients had SOFA score-positive results and 243 SIRS positive detections. We failed to detect a correlation between the clinical diagnosis of sepsis and positive SOFA or SIRS scores. Moreover, a significant proportion of sepsis that was incorrectly detected via the SOFA score could be attributed to cerebral vasospasms (p < 0.01) or a decrease in Glasgow Coma Scale (p < 0.01). Similarly, a positive SIRS score was often not attributed to a septic episode (49.0%). Discussion: Regardless of the fact that SAH is a rare disease, the relevance of sepsis detection should be given special attention in light of the long duration of therapy and sepsis prevalence. Among the six modules represented by the SOFA score, two highly modules were practically eliminated. However, to enable early diagnosis of sepsis, the investigator's clinical views and synopsis of various scores and laboratory parameters should be highlighted. Conclusions: In special patient populations, such as in critically ill SAH patients, the SOFA score can be limited regarding its applicability. In particular, it is very important to differentiate between CVS and sepsis.

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.

Evaluation of volatile sedation in the postoperative intensive care of patients recovering from heart valve surgery: protocol for a randomised, controlled, monocentre trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in the ICU. As subject to inhalational uptake and elimination, the resulting pharmacological benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, volatile anaesthetics appear suitable to meet the growing demands of fast-track cardiac surgery. However, their use requires special preparation at the bedside and trained medical and nursing staff, which might limit the pharmacological benefits. The aim of our work is to assess whether the temporal advantages of recovery under volatile sedation outweigh the higher effort of special preparation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is designed to evaluate the differences between intravenous sedatives (n=48) and volatile sedatives (n=48) in continued intensive care sedation. This study will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded, monocentre trial at a German university hospital in consenting adult patients undergoing heart valve surgery at a university hospital. This observational study will examine the necessary preparation time, staff consultation and overall feasibility of the chosen sedation method. For this purpose, the continuation of sedation in the ICU with volatile sedatives is considered as one study arm and with intravenous sedatives as the comparison group. Due to rapid elimination and quick awakening after the termination of sedation, closer consultation between the attending physician and the ICU nursing staff is required, in addition to a prolonged setup time. Study analysis will include the required setup time, time from admission to extubation as primary outcome and neurocognitive assessability. In addition, possible operation-specific (blood loss, complications), treatment parameters (catecholamine dosages, lung function) and laboratory results (acute kidney injury, acid base balance (lactataemia), liver failure) as influencing factors will be collected. The study-relevant data will be extracted from the continuous digital records of the patient data management system after the patient has been discharged from the ICU. For statistical evaluation, 95% CIs will be calculated for the median time to extubation and neurocognitive assessability, and the association will be assessed with a Cox regression model. In addition, secondary binary outcome measures will be evaluated using Fisher's exact tests. Further descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses are also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of the University of Frankfurt, Germany (#20-1050). Informed consent of all individual patients will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

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.

Volatile Isoflurane in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients-A Case Series and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The ongoing coronavirus pandemic is challenging, especially in severely affected patients who require intubation and sedation. Although the potential benefits of sedation with volatile anesthetics in coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently being discussed, the use of isoflurane in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome has not yet been reported. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. SETTING: The study was conducted with patients admitted between April 4 and May 15, 2020 to our ICU. PATIENTS: We included five patients who were previously diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. INTERVENTION: Even with high doses of several IV sedatives, the targeted level of sedation could not be achieved. Therefore, the sedation regimen was switched to inhalational isoflurane. Clinical data were recorded using a patient data management system. We recorded demographical data, laboratory results, ventilation variables, sedative dosages, sedation level, prone positioning, duration of volatile sedation and outcomes. MEASUREMENTS & MAIN RESULTS: Mean age (four men, one women) was 53.0 (± 12.7) years. The mean duration of isoflurane sedation was 103.2 (± 66.2) hours. Our data demonstrate a substantial improvement in the oxygenation ratio when using isoflurane sedation. Deep sedation as assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale was rapidly and closely controlled in all patients, and the subsequent discontinuation of IV sedation was possible within the first 30 minutes. No adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of isoflurane sedation in five patients suffering from severe coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Volatile isoflurane was able to achieve the required deep sedation and reduced the need for IV sedation.