Die Anaesthesiologie最新文献

Background: The establishment of a resuscitation room management for nontraumatic critically ill children appears to make sense. This study collected data of pediatric patients suffering from nontraumatic critically ill conditions treated in a resuscitation room.

Methods: The retrospective OBSERvE-DUS-PED study (November 2019-October 2022) recorded pediatric patients (age < 18 years) who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) for resuscitation room care. The routinely documented data on treatment were taken from the hospital information system MEDICO® and the patient data management system COPRA® in accordance with the OBSERvE dataset. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University (2023-2377).

Results: The study included 52 pediatric resuscitation room patients. Adolescents aged 14-17 years were the most frequent in the cohort representing 37% of the total and neonates/infants (0-1 year) were lowest at 8%. The most common symptoms categorized according to ABCDE problems were disturbance of consciousness (D) at 61%, cardiovascular failure (C) at 25%, respiratory insufficiency (B) at 6%, airway obstruction (A) and exposure/environment (E) problems each at 4%. The out-of-hospital and in-hospital emergency procedures were performed with the following frequencies: venous (58% vs. 65%), intraosseous (14% vs. 2%) and central venous access (0% vs. 12%), invasive airway management (35% vs. 8%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (21% vs. 10%), vasopressors (15% vs. 17%), and intra-arterial pressure measurement (0% vs. 17%). The mean duration of resuscitation room management was 70 ± 43 min. The 30-day mortality was 17%.

Conclusion: The OBSERvE-DUS-PED study demonstrates the major challenges in the care of critically ill nontraumatic pediatric patients, both in out-of-hospital and in-hospital management. The variety and complexity of the referral diagnoses as well as the immediate vital threat to the patients make it appear sensible to treat such patients primarily in a resuscitation room of the ED due to the available material, infrastructural and personnel resources.

Background: Benzodiazepines reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); however, conflicting results have been reported regarding the use of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine.

Objective: This meta-analysis examines whether remimazolam reduces PONV incidence compared with propofol or volatile agents used in general anesthesia.

Material and methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, were searched on 31 July 2023. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes included PONV severity, rescue antiemetic use, amounts of remifentanil used, and participant satisfaction scores. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool.

Results: A total of 1514 adult patients from 11 randomized controlled trials were included. The incidences of PONV in the remimazolam and control groups were 16.1% and 16.5%, respectively. Remimazolam did not increase the incidence of PONV (OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.04; p = 0.0676; I² = 48%). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in PONV with remimazolam vs. volatile agents (OR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P = 0.0000; I² = 0%) but not vs. propofol (OR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.56; p = 0.8332; I² = 0%). More remifentanil was used in the remimazolam group vs. the volatile group, with no significant difference between remimazolam and propofol groups. Participant satisfaction scores were higher with remimazolam.

Conclusion: Remimazolam did not increase PONV risk compared to propofol and reduced PONV incidence compared to volatile agents, with higher participant satisfaction. To validate the present findings, further well-planned large clinical trials are required.

Sepsis and septic shock are frequent and severe clinical pictures in intensive care medicine that result from a dysregulated immune response to an infection and cause a high mortality rate. This article provides an overview of the various extracorporeal procedures used to treat sepsis. Various procedures are used to treat sepsis and septic shock. These include high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF), very high-volume hemofiltration (VHVHF), high cut-off filter (HCO), polymyxin B hemoperfusion and cytokine adsorption filters. The HVHF and VHVHF remove inflammatory mediators but show no significant benefit in terms of stabilization and survival in sepsis patients. The HCO filters effectively eliminate cytokines but so far there is no evidence of a survival benefit. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion shows promising results in initial studies in certain patient groups, while evidence for cytokine adsorption filters is limited. Combined plasma filtration and adsorption (CPFA) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) have so far shown promising results in small studies. Although CPFA shows no survival benefit, TPE may have protective effects on the vascular glycocalyx. Extracorporeal procedures carry risks such as thrombosis and loss of proteins and clotting factors. The therapeutic benefit of these procedures in the treatment of sepsis remains unclear and further prospective randomized multicenter studies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and safety. There are currently no guideline recommendations for the routine use of these procedures in sepsis.