Anaesthesist最新文献

In 2019 a total of 756 people died in Germany while registered on the waiting list for an organ transplantation. With 10.8 organ donors/million inhabitants in 2019, Germany belongs to the bottom group in the Eurotransplant foundation as well as worldwide. All political attempts to increase the number of organ donations have so far been unsuccessful. Furthermore, the pandemic triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to a further decline in organ donations. Critical care physicians play an important role in the identification of potential doners and are also the main point of contact for relatives; however, multiple uncertainties exist regarding the process of organ donation not only in discussions in the media and society but also among physicians involved in intensive care medicine. Many assumptions and hypotheses, which have been associated with the low number of donors, lack scientific evidence and are discussed in this article.

Background: Human and vehicle resource management indicates a good emergency medical system (EMS). Frequently, an emergency medical technician (EMT) is the first responder to the emergency, which negates the necessity for an emergency physician (EP) and is just as sensible as handing over a stable patient to the EMT for transport to the hospital. The Austrian EMS is utilized by EMTs, in cases of potential life-threatening emergencies the dispatch center dispatches an additional team with an on-board EP. During the years 2017-2018 nearly every fifth EP mission in Innsbruck (including surrounding areas) ended in a cancellation. The numbers of patient handovers from EP to EMT are slightly lower with mission cancellations resulting in every fourth patient. Therefore, due to the high number of cancellations and handovers evaluated in this study, the findings suggest that there is a potential need to re-evaluate procedures. The re-evaluation of these procedures could determine whether these cancellations/handovers were justified or if an over hasty decision making was at fault. All cases considered in this study were from the Innsbruck and Telfs EP bases between 1 January 2017 and 13 December 2018.

Methods: Out of a total of 96,908 emergency dispatches, there were 2470 cancellation/handover occurrences. These occurrences consisted of 1190 cancellations and 1280 patient handovers from the EP to the EMT. Patients who were transferred to the University Hospital Innsbruck were included in these figures. The protocols of the emergency dispatches have been filtered from the so-called CarPC. They have subsequently been grouped into cancellation and handover categories. The clinical diagnoses of the patients with inpatient treatment were evaluated from the hospital information system (KIS) of the University Hospital Innsbruck. This was done with the help of the so-called emergency physician indications catalogue of the German Medical Council. The diagnosis was documented in the hospital information system. The emergency protocols from the EMTs were also evaluated retrospectively. The Innsbruck based EP patients are hospitalized in the Innsbruck Hospital due their geographical position. When there is no need for a specific intervention the patients of the EPs based in Telfs are transferred to a local hospital. When a specific intervention is necessary, patient care must be provided by the University Hospital Innsbruck. Due to the privacy practices of the Innsbruck Medical University "vote of ethics" only the data of patients transferred to the Innsbruck Clinic can be evaluated. The information provided from the EPs based in Innsbruck was exclusively from the University Hospital Innsbruck's anesthesiologists. The physicians from the Telfs EP base are of mixed medical specialities. All of them, however, have an emergency medical physician diploma, in addition to the ius practicandi. Lastly, there are no EPs in Innsbruck

Background: Emergency medical services work in the environment of high responsibility teams and have to act under unpredictable working conditions. Stress occurs and has potential of negative effects on tasks, teamwork, prioritization processes and cognitive control. Stress is not exclusively dictated by the situation-the individuals rate the situation of having the necessary skills that a particular situation demands. There are different occupational groups in the emergency medical services in Germany. Training, tasks and legal framework of these groups vary.

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify professional group-specific stressors for emergency medical services. These stress situations can be used to design skills building tools to enable individuals to cope with these stressors.

Material and methods: The participants were invited to the study via posters and social media. An expert group (minimum 6 months of experience) developed a set of items via a two-step online Delphi survey. The experts were recruited from all professional groups represented in the German emergency medical service. We evaluated the resulting parameters for relevance and validity in a larger collective. Lastly, we identified stress factors that could be grouped in relevant scales. In total 1017 participants (paramedics, physicians) took part in the final validation survey.

Results: After validation, we identified a catalogue of stressors with 7 scales and 25 items for EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) paramedics (KMO [Kayser-Meyer-Olkin criterion] 0.81), 6 scales and 24 items for advanced paramedics (KMO 0.82) and 6 scales and 24 items for EMS (Emergency Medical Service) physicians (KMO 0.82). For the professional group of EMT basic, the quality parameters did not allow further processing of the items. Professional group-specific scales for EMT paramedics are "professional limitations", "organizational framework", "expectations" and "questions of meaning". For advanced paramedics "appreciation", "exceptional circumstances" and "legal certainty" were identified. The EMT physicians named "handling third parties", "tolerance to ambiguity", "task management" and "pressure to act". A scale that is representative for all professional groups is "teamwork". Organizational circumstances occur in all groups. The item "unnecessary missions" for EMT paramedics and "legal concerns with the application of methods" for advanced paramedics are examples.

Discussion: Different stressors are relevant for the individual professional groups in the German emergency medical service. The developed catalogue can be used in the future to evaluate the subjective stress load of emergency service professionals. There are stressors that are inherent in the working environment (e.g. pressure to act) and others that can be improved through training (teamwork). We recommend traini

A young patient experienced a generalized seizure during the placement of an axillary plexus block. The mechanisms, essentially the presumed intravascular administration, which led to the local anesthetic toxicity as the cause of this event, are discussed. This case is an example of how visualization of the anatomy by ultrasound can give a false impression when certain details are not respected. It is assumed that the main mechanism in this case was venous compression by the ultrasound transducer.

Background: In 2016 the first German recommendation for the preclinical use of tourniquets was published. Currently little is known of the frequency of the use of tourniquets in the prehospital setting in Germany. This study evaluated how often a tourniquet is used in a civilian German Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS).

Method: After the approval of the scientific working group of the DRF Luftrettung HEMS, the electronic database (HEMSDER) of the DRF Luftrettung HEMS was analyzed for the period 2015-2020 under the abovementioned question. All patients with a tourniquet application were included in the study and a comparison was made with the total trauma cohort and a subgroup analysis between patients who additionally required airway management and patients without additional airway management in the cohort of tourniquet patients. The analysis was mainly descriptive. Parametric test (t-tests and χ²-tests) were used for group comparison.

Results: During the study period 67,321 trauma patients were treated and in 866 (1.3% of all trauma patients) a tourniquet was used. The mean age of these patients was 45.9 years (±19.5 years), 710 (84%) were male, 439 (51%) suffered a monotrauma, 296 (34%) suffered multiple trauma, 339 (38%) required a prehospital airway management and 321 (37%) of these were intubated. Significant differences between patients with tourniquet application and the rest of the trauma cohort were detected in general data (monotrauma, polytrauma and high-speed trauma, massive bleeding), vital signs at the scene of the accident (GCS, HF, S_pO₂) and necessary interventions, such as pressure bandages and use of hemostyptics, tranexamic acid, analgesia, the frequency of intubation and colloidal volume replacement. Due to limitations of the data set we could not obtain information regarding the limb used for the tourniquet, whether a conversion of the tourniquet was carried out and if the tourniquet was used according to the current German trauma guidelines.

Conclusion: With a frequency of 1.3% the need for a prehospital tourniquet application is low in civilian trauma patients. Monotrauma with isolated extremity injuries represent about half of the patients treated with tourniquets. The other half is represented by multiple injuries or multiple trauma patients who require significantly more invasive measures, such as airway management and more complex on-scene interventions are needed. The available data do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the location and the quality of the tourniquet application. Future documentation systems should incorporate data on the use of tourniquets, such as the location of use, indications (tactical use/massive bleeding), bleeding control achieved (yes/no) or second tourniquet necessary, conversion (yes/no) and any obvious complications.

The outbreak of SARS-CoV‑2 and the associated COVID-19 pandemic pose major challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. New data on diagnosis, clinical presentation and treatment of the disease are published on a daily basis. This case report describes the fatal course of severe COVID-19 pneumonia in an 81-year-old patient with no previous pulmonary disease who developed a giant bulla during non-invasive high-flow oxygen therapy. Virus-induced diffuse destruction of alveolar tissue or patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) are discussed as possible pathomechanisms. Future studies must determine whether lung-protective mechanical ventilation with high levels of sedation and paralysis to suppress spontaneous respiratory drive and to reduce transpulmonary pressure can prevent structural lung damage induced both by the virus and P‑SILI in COVID-19 patients with ARDS.

Background: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge.

Objective: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks.

Methods: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI.

Results: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment.

Conclusion: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be c