Search

Purpose In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome). Methods Charts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded. Results Patients' age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60-68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21-50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml*h.sup.-1; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg*hour.sup.-1*kg.sup.-1ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720-960] versus 1080 [720-1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (- 4.0 [- 4.0 to - 3.0] versus - 3.0 [- 3.6 to - 2.5]; p < 0.01). Conclusion Isoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients., Author(s): Azzeddine Kermad [sup.1], Jacques Speltz [sup.1], Guy Danziger [sup.2], Thilo Mertke [sup.1], Robert Bals [sup.2], Thomas Volk [sup.1], Philipp M. Lepper [sup.2], Andreas Meiser [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.411937.9, [...]

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020, departments of anesthesiology worldwide have encountered new and unique challenges. In this short communication, we present and assess our recommendations for orotracheal intubation, a frequent high-risk procedure. We will point out that interdisciplinary cooperation with 'non-patient care' departments like the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene tremendously helped us in creating this and other new, clear standards for anesthesiological procedures. Moreover, to reliably implement our newly created measures, we distributed incisive posters and organized comprehensive training sessions. Eventually, we summarize and analyze the occurring problems of our suggestions for intubation during their realization., Author(s): David Conrad [sup.1], Patrick Hoffmann [sup.1], Ulrich Berwanger [sup.1], Tobias Hüppe [sup.1], Thomas Volk [sup.1], Tobias Fink [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.11749.3a, 0000 0001 2167 7588, Department of Anesthesiology, [...]

The first measures to reduce the environmental harm from volatile anaesthetics are implementation of minimal fresh gas flow strategies and avoidance of desflurane. Although anaesthetic waste gas capture systems generally exert high capturing efficiencies, only about half of volatile anaesthetics used in the operating room are accessible for capture. Industry-sponsored reports promise a reduction of the global warming potential by both incineration and recycling of captured volatile anaesthetics. However, independent high-quality peer-reviewed studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence- based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patientcentric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderateto- low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence- based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rhabdomyolysis is characterized by destruction of muscle fibers by various causes and is diagnosed by increased creatine kinase concentrations in the blood. Myoglobin released into the blood may cause acute kidney injury. In this randomized controlled study, we hypothesized that myoglobin elimination would be faster when a hemoadsorber was added to a continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD). Methods: Four patients in the control group received CVVHD with a high cut-off hemofilter using high blood and dialysate flows for 48 h. Four patients in the CytoSorb group received the same treatment, but in addition, the hemoadsorber CytoSorb® was inserted in front of the hemofilter and replaced once after 24 h. Blood samples were drawn simultaneously before (pre) and after (post) the hemofilter or else the hemoadsorber, after 5 and 30 min, as well as after 2, 4, 8, and 24 h. All measurements were repeated the next day after the hemoadsorber had been renewed in the CytoSorb group. Primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) of the relative myoglobin concentrations as percent of baseline. To evaluate the efficacy of myoglobin removal, relative reductions in myoglobin concentrations during one passage through each device at each time point were calculated. Results: Patients in the CytoSorb group had a significantly lower AUC during the first 24 h (42 ± 10% vs. 63 ± 6%, p = 0.029) as well as during the observation period of 48 h (26 ± 7% vs. 51 ± 12%, p = 0.029). The relative reductions for myoglobin were considerably higher in the CytoSorb group compared to the control group during the first 8 h. Conclusion: Myoglobin concentrations declined considerably faster when CytoSorb was added to a CVVHD. When compared to a high-cut-off hemofilter, efficacy of CytoSorb in myoglobin elimination was much better. Because of saturation after 8–12 h an exchange may be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]