Search

Background: A pre-existing anticoagulation treatment and predisposing diseases for thromboembolic events represent common problems in patients with sepsis or septic shock; however, these conditions are not addressed in current national guidelines for sepsis and septic shock. One of the aims of this nationwide survey in Germany was therefore to determine how intensive care physicians deal with these problems., Methods: From October 2019 to May 2020, we conducted a nationwide survey among German medical directors of intensive care units (ICU) addressing anticoagulation and drug-based prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with sepsis and sepsis-induced coagulopathy. One focus was the procedure for patients with a pre-existing anticoagulation treatment or a previously known heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type 2 (acute symptomatic vs. dating back years)., Results: In most of the participating ICUs pre-existing anticoagulation is largely continued with low molecular weight heparin preparations or unfractionated heparin. In patients with pre-existing HIT type 2 both acute symptomatic and dating back years, argatroban represents the drug of choice. There is a high degree of variability in the definition of the target values, usually being well above the range for pure VTE prophylaxis., Conclusion: Data on the continuation of anticoagulation beyond VTE prophylaxis with a subsequently increased risk of bleeding in patients with sepsis and septic shock is limited and treatment decisions are in many cases subject to individual consideration by the practitioner. The results of our survey imply the need for a systematic work-up of this topic in order to support daily practice in many ICUs with the required evidence., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will come into effect in January 2022. Among other things, The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (SEPSIS‑3 definition) will be implemented in it. This defines sepsis as a "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". The aim of the present secondary analysis of a survey on the topic of "sepsis-induced coagulopathy" was to evaluate whether the SEPSIS‑3 definition, 4 years after its international introduction, has arrived in everyday clinical practice of intensive care units (ICU) run by anesthesiologists in Germany and thus the requirements for its use of the ICD-11 are given., Methods: Between October 2019 and May 2020, we carried out a nationwide survey among German medical directors of ICUs. In a separate block of questions we asked about the definition of sepsis used in daily practice. In addition, we asked whether the quick-sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is used in screening for sepsis in the hospital to which to the participating ICU belongs., Results: A total of 50 medical directors from anesthesiological ICUs took part in the survey. In total, the ICUs evaluated stated that they had around 14% of the high-care beds registered in Germany. The SEPSIS‑3 definition is integrated into everyday clinical practice at 78.9% of the university hospitals and 84.0% of the participating teaching hospitals. In contrast, the qSOFA screening test is only used by 26.3% of the participating university hospitals, but at least 52% of the teaching hospitals and 80% of the other hospitals., Conclusion: The data show that both SEPSIS‑3 and qSOFA have become part of everyday clinical practice in German hospitals. The cautious use of qSOFA at university hospitals with simultaneous broad acceptance of the SEPSIS‑3 definition can be interpreted as an indication that the search for a suitable screening test for sepsis has not yet been completed., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed., Methods: In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients., Results: A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients., Conclusion: The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite well-designed concepts of perioperative pain management, recent studies have revealed that a large number of patients still suffer from unacceptable pain after surgery. The purpose of this prospective evaluation was to critically analyze postoperative pain treatment provided by a routinely established, DIN certified acute pain service (APS) at the University Hospital Großhadern in Munich., Materials and Methods: A total of 1,000 consecutive patients received one of the following analgesic procedures: continuous epidural analgesia (EA, n = 401), continuous and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA, n = 305), intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids (PCA, n = 169) or continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB, n = 125). For EA and PCEA, ropivacaine 0.2 % and sufentanil 0.24 µg/ml were administered while peripheral regional analgesia was performed with infusion of ropivacaine 0.2 % only. Patients with PCEA were allowed a 3 mg bolus once per hour on demand. Standardized intravenous PCA was performed with piritramide 2.5 mg/ml, a bolus of 2.5 mg, a lock-out time of 15 min, a maximum of 25 mg/4 h and no background infusion. During the daily visits the APS assessed pain intensity at rest and during movement on a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain), acceptance of pain, satisfaction with the analgesic procedure, demand of additional non-opioid analgesics, the need for optimization including bolus applications and changes of the infusion rate or retraction of the epidural catheter. The duration of the procedures, side effects and complications were documented. The catheter insertion sites were inspected daily for redness and tenderness on palpation., Results: In general, epidural and peripheral regional analgesic techniques were superior in terms of postoperative analgesia to intravenous opioid PCA and were associated with fewer side effects, such as sedation, nausea, vomiting, obstipation and sensorimotor deficits. A subgroup analysis revealed that in major upper abdominal surgery, EA provided significantly better analgesia at rest and during movement than PCA. In lower abdominal surgery PCEA induced significantly better analgesia than both PCA and EA, especially during movement. Patient satisfaction was generally high and was best with PCEA (95 %) followed by CPNB (94 %), EA (91 %) and PCA (88 %). On the first postoperative day analgesic procedures had to be optimized (e.g. by bolus administration, retraction of catheters or changes to standardized PCA) in 23 % of EA patients, 10 % of PCEA patients, 6 % of PCA patients and 12 % of CPNB patients. Major complications, such as neuraxial hematoma, infections or respiratory depression were not observed., Conclusions: As described in many prospective studies, this evaluation revealed that for postoperative pain control, regional anesthesia is superior to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with strong opioids in terms of analgesia and side effects. In the setting of a well-organized acute pain service with frequent education and training of all members involved, postoperative pain management is safe and effective. However, regular re-evaluation of the defined and certified procedures is necessary.