[Prehospital postcardiac-arrest-sedation and -care in the Federal Republic of Germany-a web-based survey of emergency physicians]. / Präklinische Post-Cardiac-Arrest-Sedierung und -Behandlung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ­ eine webbasierte Umfrage unter notärztlichem Personal.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the implementation of postcardiac-arrest-sedation (PCAS) and -care (PRC) by prehospital emergency physicians in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of a web-based survey from October to November 2022. Questions were asked about implementation, medications used, complications, motivation for implementing or not implementing PCAS, and measures and target parameters of PRC. RESULTS: A total of 500 emergency physicians participated in the survey. In all, 73.4% stated that they regularly performed PCAS (hypnotics: 84.7%; analgesics: 71.1%; relaxants: 29.7%). Indications were pressing against the respirator (88.3%), analgesia (74.1%), synchronization to respirator (59.5%), and change of airway device (52.6%). Reasons for not performing PCAS (26.6%) included unconscious patients (73.7%); concern about hypotension (31.6%), re-arrest (26.3%), and worsening neurological assessment (22.5%). Complications of PCAS were observed by 19.3% of participants (acute hypotension [74.6%]); (re-arrest [32.4%]). In addition to baseline monitoring, PRC included 12-lead-electrocardiogram (96.6%); capnography (91.6%); catecholamine therapy (77.6%); focused echocardiography (20.6%), lung ultrasound (12.0%) and abdominal ultrasound (5.6%); induction of hypothermia (13.6%) and blood gas analysis (7.4%). An etCO2 of 35-45 mm Hg was targeted by 40.6%, while 9.0% of participants targeted an SpO2 of 94-98% and 19.2% of participants targeted a systolic blood pressure of ≥ 100 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital PRC in Germany is heterogeneous and deviations from its target parameters are frequent. PCAS is frequent and associated with relevant complications. The development of preclinical care algorithms for PCAS and PRC within preclinical care seems urgently needed.

[Decision-making support in Intensive Care to facilitate organ donation : Position paper of the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) in collaboration with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN)]. / Entscheidungshilfe bei erweitertem intensivmedizinischem Behandlungsbedarf auf dem Weg zur Organspende : Positionspapier der Sektion Ethik und der Sektion Organspende und -transplantation der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI) unter Mitarbeit der Sektion Ethik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internistische Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin (DGIIN).

BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGE: Injuries, especially traumatic brain injury, or specific illnesses and their respective sequelae can result in the demise of the patients afflicted despite all efforts of modern intensive care medicine. If in principle organ donation is an option after a patient's death, intensive therapeutic measures are regularly required in order to maintain the homeostasis of the organs. These measures, however, cannot benefit the patient afflicted anymore-which in turn might lead to an ethical conflict between dignified palliative care for him/her and expanded intensive treatment to facilitate organ donation for others, especially if the patient has opted for the limitation of life-sustaining therapies in an advance directive. METHOD: The Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) have convened several meetings and a telephone conference and have arrived at a decision-making aid as to the extent of treatment for potential organ donors. This instrument focusses first on the assessment of five individual dimensions regarding organ donation, namely the certitude of a complete and irreversible loss of all brain function, the patient's wishes as to organ donation, his or her wishes as to limiting life-sustaining therapies, the intensity of expanded intensive treatment for organ protection and the odds of its successful attainment. Then, the combination of the individual assessments, as graphically shown in a {Netzdiagramm}, will allow for a judgement as to whether a continuation or possibly an expansion of intensive care measures is ethically justified, questionable or even inappropriate. RESULT: The aid described can help mitigate ethical conflicts as to the extent of intensive care treatment for moribund patients, when organ donation is a medically sound option. NOTE: Gerald Neitzke und Annette Rogge contributed equally to this paper and should be considered co-first authors.

[Amendment to the documentation of decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies in consideration of wish to donate organs : Recommendation of the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) in collaboration with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN)]. / Ergänzung des Dokumentationsbogens "Therapiebegrenzung" unter Berücksichtigung eines möglichen Organspendewunsches : Empfehlung der Sektion Ethik sowie der Sektion Organspende und Organtransplantation der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI) unter Mitarbeit der Sektion Ethik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internistische Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin (DGIIN).

The Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) recently published a documentation for decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. The wish to donate organs was not considered explicitly. Therefore the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the DIVI together with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine worked out a supplementary footnote for the documentation form to address the individual case of a patient's wish to donate organs.

[Rationing, prioritisation, rationalizing: Significance in everyday intensive care]. / Rationierung, Priorisierung, Rationalisierung: Bedeutung im intensivmedizinischen Alltag.

BACKGROUND: Rationing, even in the treatment of critically ill patients, is the reality on intensive care units. Severity of illnesses and urgency of care are posing high ethical barriers for explicit cost-saving orders. Nevertheless, implicit rationing decisions are a daily ethical minefield, which is not always appreciated by healthcare providers. METHODS: In this article, typical decision-making situations are described, where limitation of resources plays a role. RESULTS: The idea of saving resources by rationalising rather than rationing results from the fact that not every patient benefits from the full scope of services available in the intensive care unit, and not every patient desires the full scope of care to be supplied to them. Thus, the irrational use of resources can sometimes be avoided to save them for cases where they are necessary.

[Change in therapy target and therapy limitations in intensive care medicine. Position paper of the Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine]. / Therapiezieländerung und therapiebegrenzung in der intensivmedizin. Positionspapier der Sektion Ethik der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin.

The task of physicians is to maintain life, to protect and re-establish health as well as to alleviate suffering and to accompany the dying until death, under consideration of the self-determination rights of patients. Increasingly more and differentiated options for this are becoming available in intensive care medicine. Within the framework of professional responsibility physicians must decide which of the available treatment options are indicated. This process of decision-making is determined by answering the following question: when and under which circumstances is induction or continuation of intensive care treatment justified? In addition to the indications, the advance directive of the patient is the deciding factor. Medical indications represent a scientifically based estimation that a therapeutic measure is suitable in order to achieve a defined therapy target with a given probability. The ascertainment of the patient directive is achieved in a graded process depending on the state of consciousness of the patient. The present article offers orientation assistance to physicians for these decisions which are an individual responsibility.

[Standardization of invasive neuromodulatory procedures]. / Standardisierung invasiver neuromodulativer Verfahren. Leitlinie der Stufe I der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF-Expertenempfehlung).

The Working Group on Neuromodulation of the German Association for the Study of Pain, composed of representatives from various scientific specialty societies, met on December 9, 2000, March 24, 2001, October 5, 2001, and December 8, 2001. As a result of these discussions grounded in current knowledge, the following guidelines were formulated for the standardization of invasive techniques of neuromodulation intended to serve as a systematic aid in decision-making and to provide recommendations for practice-oriented methods. The guidelines were based on both the clinical and practical experience of the group participants (see information box on the next page) as well as on the current scientific literature and guidance from the consensus report of the European Federation of IASP Chapters (EFIC) [23]. The guidelines serve the purpose of orientation and have no effect on either assumption of liability or discharge from liability. The guidelines were conceived for use by physicians in private practice,doctors in hospitals,and nonmedical personnel concerned with the care of chronic pain patients. The Working Group consists of unsalaried volunteers. The participants received no honorarium and were only reimbursed for normal travel expenses in accordance with customary directives. The guidelines will be revised should new scientific results become available, at the latest in 2 years. The plan exists to further develop the guidelines to stages II and III (AWMF). The Steering Committee of the DGSS appraised the guidelines and authorized the guidelines before publication.

The response of neuropathic pain and pain in complex regional pain syndrome I to carbamazepine and sustained-release morphine in patients pretreated with spinal cord stimulation: a double-blinded randomized study.

Forty-three patients with peripheral neuropathic pain, exclusively pain reduced by spinal cord stimulation (SCS), were switched into a painful state after SCS inactivation. This mode was used to assess the pain-relieving effect of carbamazepine (CMZ) and opioids in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. In Phase 1, the patients were randomly allocated to receive either CMZ (600 mg/d) or placebo during an SCS-free period of 8 days. In Phase 2, after a CMZ elimination interval of 7 days, 38 patients received either sustained-release morphine (90 mg/d) or placebo for 8 days. In cases of intolerable pain, the patients were authorized to reactivate their SCS. The pain intensity was rated on a numeric analog scale. In 38 patients who completed Phase 1, significant delay in pain increase was observed in the CMZ group as compared with placebo (P = 0.038). In Phase 2, the trend observed with morphine was insignificant (P = 0.41). Two CMZ patients and one morphine patient showed complete pain relief and preferred to continue the medication. Thirty-five patients returned to SCS. We conclude that CMZ is effective in peripheral neuropathic pain. Morphine obviously requires larger individually titrated dosages than those used in this study for results to be adequately interpreted.

[Qualitative comparison of modified neurolept-, balanced and intravenous anesthesia. 2. Results of a clinical study, 1992]. / Qualitätsvergleich von modifizierter Neurolept-, balancierter und intravenöser Anästhesie. Teil 2. Ergebnisse der Krefelder Studie 1992.

The safety and tolerance of neuroleptanaesthesia (NLA), balanced anaesthesia (BAL), and intravenous anaesthesia with propofol (IVA) were analysed for the first time in a prospective, randomised clinical trial. METHODS. In all, 1318 surgical patients received either NLA, BAL, or IVA. Patients who had regional anaesthesia, were aged under 18 years, or were non-cooperative or vitally threatened (ASA class i.v. to V) did not participate in the study. Premedication and anaesthetic course were set up at a standard of 30% oxygen and 70% nitrous oxide. Incidents, events, and complications due to anaesthesia were obtained (IEC key of the German Society of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, DGAI). Furthermore, postanaesthetic alertness based on specific recovery tests and the quality of anaesthesia from the patient's viewpoint, rated by patient questionnaires from the DGAI were evaluated. All parameters were calculated and checked for statistical significance using the chi-square test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The groups were broadly comparable with respect to age (P = 0.91), ASA class (P = 0.42), preoperative blood pressure (P = 0.36), and length of anaesthesia (P = 0.82). The anaesthesia, which averaged 103 min, comprised the following regimens: (1) NLA: 7.1 mg droperidol and 0.008 mg/kg body weight fentanyl, (2) IVA: 493.4 mg propofol and 0.004 mg/kg body weight fentanyl, and (3) BAL: 2.6 mg droperidol and 0.004 mg/kg body weight fentanyl with 0.4 vol.% isoflurane. With respect to anaesthetic risk, the following reactions were observed: the use of NLA led to a high incidence of tachycardia (P = 0.001), arrhythmias (P = 0.05), and hypertensive reactions (P = 0.001), whereas in the IVA group only hypotension (P = 0.0001) occurred. However, after the use of BAL none of the aforementioned complications were detectable to any considerable degree. Similarly, patients who had cardiac disease showed greater IEC changes after the use of NLA than after BAL or IVA (P = 0.02) (Tables 1 and 2). The heart rates and blood pressures during BAL and IVA were extremely stable, and therefore, vasoactive therapy was required considerably less in comparison to NLA (P = 0.001) (Table 4). Recovery after the use of IVA was strikingly rapid: the patient's responsiveness, orientation, and ability to concentrate was significantly better than after the other anaesthetic regimen (P = 0.01) (Table 5). With regard to the typical discomforts after anaesthesia, IVA was highly superior to BAL and NLA: nausea (P = 0.0003) and retching (P = 0.03) hardly ever occurred (Table 6). Due to the tolerable manner of waking up and rapid return of orientation and the ability to concentrate, IVA was highly favoured by the patients (P = < 0.01) (Table 7). CONCLUSION. The present results show clear clinical advantages of BAL and IVA in contrast to neuroleptanaesthesia. Due to the very low incidence of side effects such as nausea and vomiting IVA was highly recommended by the patients, at least in part because of the rapid recovery time.

[Quality comparison of modified neurolept-, balanced and intravenous anesthesia. 1. Study design and patient analysis of the Krefelder study 1992]. / Qualitätsvergleich von modifizierter Neurolept-, balancierter und intravenöser Anästhesie. Teil 1. Studiendesign und Patientenanalyse der Krefelder Studie 1992.

The choice of appropriate anaesthesia in a more or less seriously ill patient requires detailed information on the risk and tolerance of each specific anaesthetic regimen. The objective of this prospective, randomised clinical trial was to test the hypothesis that three regimens of general anaesthesia--neurolept-(NLA), balanced (BAL), and intravenous propofol anaesthesia (IVA)--differ with regard to safety and comfort. The criteria for the intraoperative safety and postoperative comfort of the patients were the incidents, events and complications (IEC) that required medical treatment as well as the evaluation of postoperative complaints by the patients according to the IEC list and patient questionnaires of the German Society of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine (DGAI). METHODS. The study duration was about 4 months, from January to April 1992. During this period the patients of all nine operative departments of the hospital received strictly randomised NLA, BAL, or IVA. Patients who had regional anaesthesia or were not capable of understanding the German language, were nonco-operative, or were seriously ill (ASA class IV to V) as well as children under 18 years of age did not participate in the study. All eligible patients provided their informed consent. ANAESTHESIA. For premedication 10 mg chlorazepate was administered the night before and on the day of surgery. Anaesthesia was conducted under normoventilation using a mixture of 70% nitrous oxide and 30% oxygen. NLA patients were induced intravenously with 0.2 mg/kg body weight etomidate and received 0.005 mg/kg fentanyl and 0.07 mg/kg droperidol before the start of surgery. The repetition dose was 0.2 mg fentanyl and 2.5 mg droperidol. In the BAL patients the dose of fentanyl and droperidol was reduced to 50% due to the addition of isoflurane up to 1 vol. %. IVA patients received 2 mg/kg propofol over 3 min followed by an infusion of 3-5 mg/kg per hour together with 0.2 mg fentanyl/h. Neuromuscular blockade was accomplished with vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg. If the blood pressure and heart rate increased by more than 20% of preoperative values, analgesia was reinforced by an additional fentanyl dose. Anaesthesia was subsequently enhanced by increasing the neurolept/propofol/isoflurane dose by up to 50%. DATA COLLECTION. The following parameters were registered: patients' personal data and physical condition according to ASA classification; the grade of risk according to the Munich risk checklist; the frequency of IEC during surgery; the patients' permanent medications; postanaesthetic vigilance and recovery; the acceptance of the assigned anaesthetic by the physician; the cost of the anaesthetic used; and pre- and post-operative complaints as well as the assessment of anaesthesia by the patient. The statistical evaluation was performed using the chi-square test. RESULTS. A total of 1,346 patients were enrolled in the study; 28 (2%) were excluded because the treatment protocol was changed by the anaesthesiologist. Seventy per cent were recruited from general, gynaecologic, or otorhinolaryngologic surgery. The three anaesthetic regimens (NLA, BAL, and IVA) were used in other departments with the same frequency with the exception of ophthalmology and urology (P > 0.1) (Fig. 1). Of the 1,318 eligible patients, 443 received NLA, 443 BAL, and 432 IVA (P = 0.8). The distribution of the various parameters was surprisingly similar among the three groups: the average age was 50 years (P = 0.91), body weight 71 kg (P = 0.33), reference or initial blood pressure 130/80 mm Hg (P = 0.36), average time of anaesthesia 103 min (P = 0.82), and all had the same risk score (P = 0.42). Sixty per cent were female. An average of 85% of the 18- to 89-year-old patients were considered to be healthy according to the ASA risk classification (P = 0.42). However, on applying the Munich risk checklist the average number of healthy individuals was 5% to 10% lower than that of the ASA risk classification.