Search

As of late 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to health care systems worldwide. Rapidly rising local COVID-19 incidence rates, result in demand for high hospital and intensive care bed capacities on short notice. A detailed up-to-date regional surveillance of the dynamics of the pandemic, precise prediction of required inpatient capacities of care as well as a centralized coordination of the distribution of regional patient fluxes is needed to ensure optimal patient care. In March 2020, the German federal state of Saxony established three COVID-19 coordination centers located at each of its maximum care hospitals, namely the University Hospitals Dresden and Leipzig and the hospital Chemnitz. Each center has coordinated inpatient care facilities for the three regions East, Northwest and Southwest Saxony with 36, 18 and 29 hospital sites, respectively. Fed by daily data flows from local public health authorities capturing the dynamics of the pandemic as well as daily reports on regional inpatient care capacities, we established the information and prognosis tool DISPENSE. It provides a regional overview of the current pandemic situation combined with daily prognoses for up to seven days as well as outlooks for up to 14 days of bed requirements. The prognosis precision varies from 21% and 38% to 12% and 15% relative errors in normal ward and ICU bed demand, respectively, depending on the considered time period. The deployment of DISPENSE has had a major positive impact to stay alert for the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and to allocate resources as needed. The application of a mathematical model to forecast required bed capacities enabled concerted actions for patient allocation and strategic planning. The ad-hoc implementation of these tools substantiates the need of a detailed data basis that enables appropriate responses, both on regional scales in terms of clinic resource planning and on larger scales concerning political reactions to pandemic

Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis is a life-threatening presentation of acute pancreatitis. The mortality of 20–80% initially depends on the persistence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and, in the later course of the disease, on secondary infection of the necrosis. The questions whether prophylactic antibiotics aiming to prevent this infection should be administered and which antibiotic is the best to use, as well as the problem of fungal infection under antibiotic treatment are still intriguing and insufficiently solved. Methods: A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programmes of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW). Results: Despite the widely practised prophylactic antibiotic administration in severe pancreatitis, no evidence for the benefit of this strategy exists. One of the drawbacks might be a tendency for disastrous fungal infection under prophylactic antibiotics. Bacterial translocation from the gut in the second week after the onset of symptoms is the major source for infection of pancreatic necrosis and provides a clear indication for antibiotic treatment. However, routine fine-needle aspiration for a calculated antibiotic therapy cannot be recommended, and all other tests offer only indirect signs. Important factors such as enteral versus parenteral feeding and the method of necrosectomy are mostly neglected in the trials but seem to be essential for the outcome of the patient. Conclusions: Even though most meta-analyses including the newer double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics showed no beneficial effects in the prevention of infection of necrosis and/or outcome of the patients, this strategy is still widely used in clinical routine. Since nearly all trials published so far show systematic problems (i.e. inaccurate definition of the severity of the disease, poor statistical testing, and, Hintergrund: Die nekrotisierende Pankreatitis weist eine Mortalität von 20–80% auf. Initial ist vor allem das Ausmaß des Organversagens entscheidend für die Prognose des Patienten. In der zweiten Krankheitswoche stellt dann die sekundäre Infektion der Nekrosen durch die Translokation von Darmkeimen das entscheidende Problem dar. Zur Vermeidung einer solchen Infektion werden klinisch sehr häufig Breitspektrumantibioktika prophylaktisch eingesetzt. Dies wird aber zunehmend kritisch diskutiert, und es existieren kontroverse Empfehlungen. Methoden: Eine Literaturrecherche unter Einbeziehung von PubMed und der Programme der Digestive Disease Week (DDW) und der United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) wurde durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Die meisten Studien können den prophylaktischen Einsatz von Antibiotika bei der schweren Pankreatitis nicht rechtfertigen. Einige Studien belegen vielmehr eine Selektion resistenter Keime und vor allem auch eine erhöhte Rate von schwer therapierbaren Pilzinfektionen unter einer solchen Therapie. Daher sollte erst nach dem Nachweis einer Nekroseinfektion mit einer Antibiotikatherapie begonnen werden, wobei keine Routine-Feinnadelpunktion der Nekrose zum Keimnachweis durchgeführt werden sollte. Es stehen daher nur indirekte, meist bildgebende Verfahren für den Infektionsnachweis zur Verfügung. Entscheidende Faktoren wie die enterale Ernährung und die Methode der Nekrosektomie wurden bisher bei den meisten Studien vernachlässigt, scheinen aber essenziell für das Behandlungsergebnis des Patienten zu sein. Schlussfolgerungen: Die meisten publizierten Studien weisen eine sehr heterogene Definition der Erkrankung, uneinheitliche Behandlungsprotokolle und Ungenauigkeiten bei der statistischen Testung auf. Gerade entscheidende Faktoren wie die enterale Ernährung werden größtenteils komplett vernachlässigt. Es besteht daher ein Bedarf für randomisierte placebokontrollierte Studien, die diese Probleme berücksichtigen und suffiziente Schlussfolgerunge