[Prehospital non-invasive ventilation in Germany: results of a nationwide survey of ground-based emergency medical services]. / Prähospitale nichtinvasive Ventilation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung bodengebundener Rettungsdienste.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an evidence-based treatment of acute respiratory failure and can be helpful to reduce morbidity and mortality. In Germany national S3 guidelines for inhospital use of NIV based on a large number of clinical trials were published in 2008; however, only limited data for prehospital non-invasive ventilation (pNIV) and hence no recommendations for prehospital use exist so far. AIM: In order to create a database for pNIV in Germany a nationwide survey was conducted to explore the status quo for the years 2005-2008 and to survey expected future developments including disposability, acceptance and frequency of pNIV. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire on the use of pNIV was developed and distributed to 270 heads of medical emergency services in Germany. RESULTS: Of the 270 questionnaires distributed 142 could be evaluated (52 %). The pNIV was rated as a reasonable treatment option in 91 % of the respondents but was available in only 54 out of the 142 responding emergency medical services (38 %). Continuous positive airway pressure (98 %) and biphasic positive airway pressure (22 %) were the predominantly used ventilation modes. Indications for pNIV use were acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (96 %), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (89 %), asthma (32 %) and pneumonia (28 %). Adverse events were reported for panic (20 ± 17%) and non-threatening heart rhythm disorders (8 ± 5%), the rate of secondary intubation was low (reduction from 20 % to 10 %) and comparable to data from inhospital treatment. CONCLUSION: Prehospital NIV in Germany was used by only one third of all respondents by the end of 2008. Based on the clinical data a growing application for pNIV is expected. Controlled prehospital studies are needed to enunciate evidence-based recommendations for pNIV.

Impact of platelet count on results obtained from multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (Multiplate).

OBJECTIVES: Use of potent antiplatelet drugs requires evaluation of platelet function. While platelet function in elective cases is usually assessed in a central laboratory environment, there is also an urgent need for rapid perioperative point-of-care assessment. Recently, multiple electrode platelet aggregometry has been developed and assumed to measure platelet function independent from platelet count. We tested the hypothesis that results of multiple electrode platelet aggregometry are affected by platelet count, in particular if platelet count is below normal range. METHODS: Whole blood samples from 20 healthy volunteers were prepared containing platelet concentrations of 50,000, 100,000, 150,000, 200,000, and 250,000 microl(-1) while maintaining hematocrit. Platelet aggregation was induced by collagen, thrombin receptor activating peptide 6 (TRAP-6), adenosine-diphoshate (ADP), and arachidonic acid, respectively, and aggregation was measured by multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (Multiplate). RESULTS: Results of multiple electrode platelet aggregometry significantly decreased in blood samples with platelet count below normal range. Compared to results measured in blood samples with platelet count within normal range, aggregometry results decreased by 18.4 % (p<0.001) and 37.2 % (p<0.001) in blood samples with a platelet count of 100.000 and 50.000 microl(-1), respectively. On the other hand, large interindividual variation has been observed and some blood samples showed normal results even with platelet counts of 50.000 microl(-1). CONCLUSION: The results obtained with Multiplate. Analyzer are influenced by platelet function as well as platelet count thus displaying the overall platelet aggregability within the blood sample rather than platelet function alone.

[Implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. How much anesthesia is necessary?]. / Implantation von Kardioverter-Defibrillatoren. Wie viel Anästhesie ist nötig?

Updated cardiologic guidelines constitute the background for an extended spectrum of indications for the implantation of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) and lead to an increasing number of operative implantations of AICDs. Moreover, during implantation of devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy the anesthesiologist is responsible for the most critically ill patients with the longest duration of surgery. As a result anesthesiologists face an increasing number of critically ill patients, whose management contributes to perioperative outcome. Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators can be implanted either during general anesthesia, local anesthesia or during a combination of local anesthesia combined with deep conscious sedation accomplished by an anesthesiologist. Besides economic aspects there is an increasing demand for anesthesia with the least cardiovascular side effects and rapid recovery in the often seriously ill patient with preexisting limitations of cardiac and pulmonary functions. Accordingly procedure and anesthesia-associated risks are reviewed and an algorithm for anesthesia management is suggested.