[Team-specific impacts of the corona pandemic on intensive care medicine personnel of a maximum care hospital]. / Teamspezifische Auswirkungen der Corona-Pandemie auf Mitarbeiter:innen der Internistischen Intensivmedizin eines Krankenhauses der Maximalversorgung.

The ongoing strain on personnel in the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic is considerable and poses major emotional and psychological challenges for the personnel. In a team evaluation (physicians and nurses), team-specific stress, possible relief strategies, positive and negative experiences, and wishes for improvement of the situation in an intensive care unit were collected. While both occupational groups perceived equally high emotional stress intensities, nursing additionally perceived high stress intensities in the organizational and physical areas. Thus, the occupational group of nurses proves to be the most stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings presented here can be used to derive instructions for future actions.

Reactivation of EBV and CMV in Severe COVID-19-Epiphenomena or Trigger of Hyperinflammation in Need of Treatment? A Large Case Series of Critically ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Reactivation of viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are common in critically ill patients and have been described in patients with severe COVID-19. However, it is unclear whether these reactivations are associated with increased mortality and whether targeted treatments are beneficial. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center cohort study, patients with severe COVID-19 treated on our intensive care unit (ICU) were screened for EBV and CMV reactivation as detected by polymerase chain reaction. If present, patient characteristics, temporal connections to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 diagnosis and corticosteroid use, the use of targeted treatments as well as the course of disease and outcome were analyzed. As control group, non-COVID-19 patients with sepsis, treated within the same time period on our ICU, served as control group to compare incidences of viral reactivation. RESULTS: In 19 (16%) of 117 patients with severe COVID-19 treated on our ICU EBV reactivations were identified, comparable 18 (14%) of 126 in the non-COVID-19 control group (P = .672). Similarly, in 11 (9%) of 117 patients CMV reactivations were identified, comparable to the 16 (13%) of 126 in the non-COVID-19 sepsis patients (P = .296). The majority of EBV (58%) and CMV reactivations (55%) were detected in patients under systemic corticosteroid treatment. 7 (37%) of 19 patients with EBV reactivation survived the ICU stay, 2 (29%) of 7 patients with rituximab treatment and 5 (42%) of 12 patients without treatment (P = .568). Five (50%) of 10 patients with CMV reactivation survived the ICU stay, 5 (83%) of 6 patients with ganciclovir treatment and 0 of 4 patients without treatment (P = .048). Follow-up analysis in these patients showed that the initiation of treatment lead to decrease in viral load. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at a high risk for EBV and CMV reactivations. Whether these reactivations are a cause of hyperinflammation and require targeted treatment remains uncertain. However, in patients with clinical deterioration or signs of hyperinflammation targeted treatment might be beneficial and warrants further studying.

Clinical Course and Outcome of Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Alpha Variant Infection Compared to Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Wild-Type Infection Admitted to the ICU.

The alpha variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with higher transmissibility and possibly higher mortality compared with wild-type SARS-CoV-2. However, few data are available on the clinical course of infections with the alpha variant compared with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed patients admitted to our ICU due to SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant infection and compared characteristics and course to patients with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type infection. The median age of patients with Alpha variant infections was 57 years compared to 62 years in the wild-type group. ICU survival was 41/80 (51%) in the Alpha variant group and 35/80 (44%) in the wild-type group (p = 0.429). Results of a matched-pair analysis based on age and sex illustrated that 45/58 patients (77.6%) in the Alpha variant group and 38/58 (65.5%) patients in the wild-type group required mechanical ventilation (p = 0.217). ICU survival was documented for 28/58 patients (48.3%) in the Alpha variant group and 27/58 patients (46.6%) in the wild-type group (p = 1). Thus, ICU mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections remains high. Although the Alpha variant group included younger patients requiring mechanical ventilation, no significant differences between patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant and the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, respectively, were detected with respect to clinical course and ICU mortality. For future VOCs, we believe it would be important to obtain valid and rapid data on the clinical course of critically ill patients who test positive for COVID-19 in order to perform appropriate epidemiological planning of intensive care capacity.