End-of-life practices in 11 German intensive care units : Results from the ETHICUS-2 study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life care is common in German intensive care units (ICUs) but little is known about daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To study the practice of end-of-life care. METHODS: Prospectively planned, secondary analysis comprising the German subset of the worldwide Ethicus­2 Study (2015-2016) including consecutive ICU patients with limitation of life-sustaining therapy or who died. RESULTS: Among 1092 (13.7%) of 7966 patients from 11 multidisciplinary ICUs, 967 (88.6%) had treatment limitations, 92 (8.4%) died with failed CPR, and 33 (3%) with brain death. Among patients with treatment limitations, 22.3% (216/967) patients were discharged alive from the ICU. More patients had treatments withdrawn than withheld (556 [57.5%] vs. 411 [42.5%], p < 0.001). Patients with treatment limitations were older (median 73 years [interquartile range (IQR) 61-80] vs. 68 years [IQR 54-77]) and more had mental decision-making capacity (12.9 vs. 0.8%), advance directives (28.6 vs. 11.2%), and information about treatment wishes (82.7 vs 33.3%, all p < 0.001). Physicians reported discussing treatment limitations with patients with mental decision-making capacity and families (91.3 and 82.6%, respectively). Patient wishes were unknown in 41.3% of patients. The major reason for decision-making was unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (34.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment limitations are common, based on information about patients' wishes and discussion between stakeholders, patients and families. However, our findings suggest that treatment preferences of nearly half the patients remain unknown which affects guidance for treatment decisions.

[Organ donation-Not only a responsibility of intensive care medicine]. / Organspende ­ Nicht nur eine intensivmedizinische Aufgabe.

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.

[Comparison of current critical care information systems from the perspective of clinical users : Summary of the results of a German nationwide survey]. / Vergleich aktueller Patientendatenmanagementsysteme in der Intensivmedizin aus Sicht der klinischen Nutzer : Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage.

BACKGROUND: Critical care information systems (CCIS) are computer-based systems designed to process the growing amount of complex medical data in intensive care units (ICU). Previous studies have shown that CCICs can increase the quality of patient care by reducing errors and improving work efficiency; however, other studies have shown that CCISs can also cause harmful effects by disrupting workflow, facilitating medication errors or increasing charting time. The factors that decide whether a CCIS has a positive or negative impact on patient care are summarized under the term "usability". This article summarizes the results of three previously published papers on this topic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify which CCIS functions were considered useful by clinical ICU staff and how well these functions are implemented in the CCISs currently used in German ICUs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey was performed targeting nurses and physicians working in German ICUs using a previously validated questionnaire. The questionnaire included a list of functions (36 for physicians/31 for nurses) that were preselected by experts based on a comprehensive model of ICU work processes. Each of these functions was rated by the study participants on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (worst rating) to 5 (best rating) with respect to the usefulness to identify which functions of CCIS can truly be considered as useful by clinical ICU staff. Furthermore, the participants rated how well these functions were implemented in the CCIS currently in use on the ICU, also using a Likert scale of 0-5. Further questions were provided to rate specific technical usability aspects of the CCISs currently in use. In addition, to capture possible confounders the questionnaire recorded 18 individual and workspace characteristics which might influence the ratings. RESULTS: A total of 171 nurses and 741 physicians participated in the survey of which 535 used CCISs. Of the functions 33 were rated as useful for doctors and 28 functions for nurses with median scores between 4 and 5. Participants currently using CCISs gave higher ratings compared to participants not using CCISs. The quality of the functions was rated relatively lower than the usefulness and the availability. Furthermore, currently used CCISs in Germany differ greatly in their technical and task-specific usability. Of the CCISs investigated, the system ICUData had the best overall rating and technical usability followed by the systems ICM and MetaVision. The same three CCIS were rated best in task-specific functions without significant differences between them. CONCLUSION: Those functions that were identified as useful based on the ratings of clinical ICU staff should be implemented in current CCIS. The list of these functions might be regarded as a first step towards providing a catalog of functional requirements for CCISs. Furthermore, as the results show that the quality of the available functions was rated lower than the availability of the functions, manufacturers should shift more of the effort away from the development of new features and focus on improving the user-friendliness and quality of existing functions.

[Non-beneficial therapy and emotional exhaustion in end-of-life care : Results of a survey among intensive care unit personnel]. / Übertherapie und emotionale Erschöpfung in der "end-of-life care" : Ergebnisse einer Mitarbeiterumfrage auf der Intensivstation.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life care (EOLC) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is becoming increasingly more common but ethical standards are compromised by growing economic pressure. It was previously found that perception of non-beneficial treatment (NBT) was independently associated with the core burnout dimension of emotional exhaustion. It is unknown whether factors of the work environment also play a role in the context of EOLC. OBJECTIVE: Is the working environment associated with perception of NBT or clinician burnout? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Physicians and nursing personnel from 11 German ICUs who took part in an international, longitudinal prospective observational study on EOLC in 2015-2016 were surveyed using validated instruments. Risk factors were obtained by multivariate multilevel analysis. RESULTS: The participation rate was 49.8% of personnel working in the ICU at the time of the survey. Overall, 325 nursing personnel, 91 residents and 26 consulting physicians participated. Nurses perceived NBT more frequently than physicians. Predictors for the perception of NBT were profession, collaboration in the EOLC context, excessively high workload (each p ≤ 0.001) and the numbers of weekend working days per month (p = 0.012). Protective factors against burnout included intensive care specialization (p = 0.001) and emotional support within the team (p ≤ 0.001), while emotional exhaustion through contact with relatives at the end of life and a high workload were both increased (each p ≤ 0.001). DISCUSSION: Using the example of EOLC, deficits in the work environment and stress factors were uncovered. Factors of the work environment are associated with perceived NBT. To reduce NBT and burnout, the quality of the work environment should be improved and intensive care specialization and emotional support within the team enhanced. Interprofessional decision-making among the ICU team and interprofessional collaboration should be improved by regular joint rounds and interprofessional case discussions. Mitigating stressful factors such as communication with relatives and high workload require allocation of respective resources.

[Application of a sponaneous ventilation protocol. Experiences from a weaning center for neurological diseases]. / Anwendung eines standardisierten Spontanatmungsprotokolls. Erfahrungen in einem Weaning-Zentrum mit neurologischem Schwerpunkt.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate a novel standardized protocol in this neurological weaning unit in order to optimize the weaning process for patients subjected to prolonged mechanical ventilation. Of primary interest were the frequency of and reasons for deviating from the protocol as well as risk factors for weaning failure and mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients admitted to the weaning unit were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The weaning protocol consisted of 22 discrete weaning steps. An individual weaning approach was only begun if the standardized protocol failed. Variables for risk analysis included age, body mass index, APACHE II score, reason for initiating mechanical ventilation, total duration of inpatient stay before admission to the weaning unit, extent of mechanical ventilation period before admission, chronic pulmonary diseases and dialysis. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2008 a total of 644 consecutively admitted patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age was 67.6 ± 12.3 years, the mean inpatient stay before admission was 45.8 ± 34.9 days and the mean duration of mechanical ventilation before admission to the unit was 38.1 ± 28.7 days. The mean APACHE II score was 19.0 ± 7.2, 68 % of the patients were male, 98.6 % had a tracheotomy tube, 30.9 % had a history of chronic pulmonary disease and 13.7 % required dialysis. Reasons for initiating ventilation were cerebral 33.1 %, pulmonary 28.7 %, cardiovascular 31.5 %, neuropathic 2.8 %, myopathic 0.9 %, spinal cord injuries 1.9 % and 1.1 % were unclear. Weaning was successful in 77.3 % (498 patients) of all cases with a mean duration of 22.0 ± 33.9 days. Of those successfully weaned, a total of 85.9 % (n = 428) were weaned according to the standard protocol. The weaning process was also shorter (20.8 ± 35.6 versus 29.0 ± 19.9 days) for those patients weaned according to the protocol compared to those patients where the protocol failed. Protocol failure was normally due to complications during the weaning process. Among the patients where the protocol failed, chronic pulmonary disease (41.4 versus 28.3 %; p < 0.02), a longer duration of ventilation (42.3 ± 22.8 versus 35.9 ± 25.3 days; p < 0.01) and a longer in-hospital stay (52.7 ± 41.4 versus 42.4 ± 30.1 days; p < 0.01) prior to admission were significantly more common. A total of 23.0 % (n = 148) of the patients died and 9.8 % (n = 63) of the patients were discharged into a home care ventilation program. Chronic pulmonary disease and the duration of inpatient stay prior to admission were predictors of weaning failure. The APACHE II score, age and acute renal failure with concomitant need for dialysis were the factors best predicting mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation can be successfully weaned using a standardized protocol. Failures of standardized weaning per protocol occurred most often in patients with chronic pulmonary disease and following longer inpatient stay. These patients also had a higher risk of final weaning failure.

Enteral nutrition is associated with improved outcome in patients with severe sepsis. A secondary analysis of the VISEP trial.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal nutritional strategy remains controversial, particularly in severely septic patients. Our aim was to analyze the effect of three nutritional strategies--enteral (EN), parenteral (PN), and combined nutrition (EN+PN)--on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of the prospective, randomized-controlled, multicenter "Intensive Insulin Therapy and Pentastarch Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis (VISEP)" trial only included patients with a length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) of more than 7 days. Besides patient characteristics, data on nutrition therapy were collected daily for up to 21 days. Morbidity as measured by the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, incidence of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, ventilator-free days and severe hypoglycemia, length of ICU stay, and mortality at 90 days were compared between the three nutritional strategies. RESULTS: In all, 353 patients were included in the analysis with the majority (68.5 %) receiving EN+PN, 24.4 % receiving EN, and only 7.1 % receiving PN. Median caloric intake was 918 kcal/day (EN), 1,210 kcal/day (PN), and 1,343 kcal/day (EN+PN; p < 0.001). In the latter group, calories were predominantly administered via the parenteral route within the first week. The rate of death at 90 days was lower with EN than with EN+PN (26.7 % vs. 41.3 %, p = 0.048), as was the rate of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the effect on mortality [hazard ratio (HR)= 1.86, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.98, p = 0.010] and the rate of secondary infections (HR= 1.89, 95 % CI: 1.27-2.81, p = 0.002) remained different between EN and EN+PN. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and prolonged ICU stay, EN alone was associated with improved clinical outcome compared to EN+PN. This hypothesis-generating result has to be confirmed by a randomized-controlled trial in this specific patient population.

Prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of sepsis: 1st revision of S-2k guidelines of the German Sepsis Society (Deutsche Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG)) and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI)).

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1(st) revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the "German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal" of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources.

[Anonymous critical incident reporting system. Implementation in an intensive care unit]. / Anonymes Meldesystems für kritische Ereignisse. Implementierung auf einer Intensivstation.

In 2003 an anonymous reporting system for critical incidents was implemented in the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine of the University Hospital Dresden. This reporting system was modified to an intranet-based version and extended to the intensive care unit (ICU). During the first 18 months 70 anonymous reports originating from the ICU were registered. The most common errors involved fluid management, followed by errors in airway management, cardio-vascular management, neurological problems and errors in drug administration. The main causes were lack of attention, missing check of measures, work load of nurses, experience and communication deficits. The article discusses the incidence of errors in the ICU setting and their potential effects.

[Study protocol of the VISEP study. Response of the SepNet study group]. / Studienprotokoll der VISEP-Studie. Entgegnung der SepNet-Studiengruppe.

In the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse.

[Therapy of hyperthermia in sepsis and septic shock. Necessary or injurious?]. / Therapie der Hyperthermie bei Sepsis und septischem Schock. Erforderlich oder schädlich?

In critically ill patients fever is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality rate. However, it remains unclear whether fever is an associated symptom of the underlying severe disease or a stimulator of specific pathophysiological cascades considered responsible for a deleterious outcome. Hyperthermia per se induces systemic changes like increased energy and oxygen demands, tachycardia, or fluid loss which might be harmful especially in septic patients due to congestion of the cardiovascular system. In this constellation a reduction of fever by antipyretic strategies might be indicated to decrease oxygen and energy demands. On the other hand the increasing body temperature obviously plays an important role in the inflammatory hemostasis during infections. Fever optimises humoral and cellular responses to infection and has some direct effects on bacteria and other microorganisms. Therefore, in severe sepsis or septic shock, fever reduction might impair the immune competency of the patients. According to the currently available evidence a body temperature higher than 40 degrees C is definitely harmful and should be treated in any case. A temperature range between 36 degrees C and 39 degrees C should be achieved for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. At present there are no data showing the superiority of any of the different antipyrectic strategies in septic patients. Hence, external cooling with cold blankets or other devices may induce shivering of the muscles with a substantial increase of oxygen demand and is hardly tolerated in conscious patients. However, antipyretic therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock should be indicated while considering the individual pathophysiology of every patient.

[Hypertonic saline solution for reduction of intracranial pressure. Are there doubts?]. / Hypertone NaCl-Lösung zur Senkung des intrakraniellen Drucks. Gibt es Bedenken?

Osmotherapy, i.e. the intravenous administration of hyperosmolar solutions, is one of the mainstays of therapy for reduction of a pathologically increased intracranial pressure, in addition to analgosedation and raising the upper body of the patient. The administration of mannitol as a osmotherapeutic agent is, however, marred by considerable side-effects. A possible alternative is the use of hypertonic saline solution (NaCl). The advantages and disadvantages of this option are considered as well as points still in question.

[Therapeutic options to improve the microcirculation in sepsis and septic shock]. / Mikrozirkulation bei Sepsis und septischem Schock: Therapeutische Ansätze zur Verbesserung.

The severe impairment of the microcirculation plays a substantial role in the pathogenesis of severe sepsis and septic shock, and leads to multiple organ failure and death. Therapeutic strategies to resuscitate the microcirculatory blood flow and to improve the functional capillar density are therefore essential to surmount the microcirculatory pathology and to avoid tissue hypoxia. Based on reasonable scientific evidence, early fluid resuscitation directed by defined haemodynamic and metabolic goals (EGDT) as well as the application of activated protein C (rhAPC) according to the guidelines could be recommended. Dobutamine is the first choice to improve cardiac output and to overcome myocardial depression in septic shock whereas phosphodiesterase-III-inhibitors and levosimendane are still experimental options. Furthermore selective inhibitors of iNOS, nitroglycerol, as well as vasopressin have to be investigated relating to their specific effects on the microcirculation and their influence on survival in seevere sepsis and septic shock.

[Diagnosis and therapy of sepsis: guidelines of the German Sepsis Society Inc. and the German Interdisciplinary Society for Intensive and Emergency Medicine]. / Diagnose und therapie der sepsis: S2-Leitlinien der Deutschen Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG) und der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI).

A recent survey conducted by the publicly funded Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet) reveals that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75,000 inhabitants (110 out of 100,000) and sepsis in 79,000 inhabitants (116 out of 100,000) in Germany annually. This illness is responsible for approximately 60,000 deaths and ranges as the third most frequent cause of death after acute myocardial infarction. Direct costs for the intensive care of patients with severe sepsis alone amount to approximately 1.77 billion euros, which means that about 30% of the budget in intensive care is used to treat severe sepsis. However, until now German guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of severe sepsis did not exist. Therefore, the German Sepsis Society initiated the development of guidelines which are based on international recommendations by the International Sepsis Forum (ISF) and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and take into account the structure and organization of the German health care system. Priority was given to the following guideline topics: a) diagnosis, b) prevention, c) causative therapy, d) supportive therapy, e) adjunctive therapy. The guidelines development process was carefully planned and strictly adhered to the requirements of the Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF).

[Diagnosis and therapy of sepsis]. / Diagnose und Therapie der Sepsis - S-2 Leitlinien der Deutschen Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG) und der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI).

A recent survey conducted by the publicly funded Competence Network Sepsis (Sep- Net) reveals that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75,000 inhabitants (110 out of 100,000) and sepsis in 79,000 inhabitants (116 out of 100,000) in Germany annually. This illness is responsible for approx. 60,000 deaths and ranges as the third most frequent cause of death after acute myocardial infarction. Direct costs for the intensive care of patients with severe sepsis alone amount to approx. 1.77 billion euros, which means that about 30% of the budget in intensive care is used to treat severe sepsis. However, until now German guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of severe sepsis did not exist. Therefore, the German Sepsis Society initiated the development of guidelines which are based on international recommendations by the International Sepsis Forum (ISF) and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and take into account the structure and organisation of the German health care system. Priority was given to the following guideline topics: a) diagnosis, b) prevention, c) causative therapy, d) supportive therapy, e) adjunctive therapy. The guidelines development process was carefully planned and strictly adhered to according to the requirements of the Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF).

[Diagnosis and therapy of sepsis. Guidelines of the German Sepsis Society Inc. and the German Interdisciplinary Society for Intensive and Emergency Medicine]. / Diagnose und Therapie der Sepsis. S2-Leitlinien der Deutschen Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG) und der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI).

A recent survey conducted by the publicly funded Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet) reveals that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75,000 inhabitants (110 out of 100,000) and sepsis in 79,000 inhabitants (116 out of 100,000) in Germany annually. This illness is responsible for approximately 60,000 deaths and ranges as the third most frequent cause of death after acute myocardial infarction. Direct costs for the intensive care of patients with severe sepsis alone amount to approximately 1.77 billion euros, which means that about 30% of the budget in intensive care is used to treat severe sepsis. However, until now German guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of severe sepsis did not exist. Therefore, the German Sepsis Society initiated the development of guidelines which are based on international recommendations by the International Sepsis Forum (ISF) and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and take into account the structure and organization of the German health care system. Priority was given to the following guideline topics: a) diagnosis, b) prevention, c) causative therapy, d) supportive therapy, e) adjunctive therapy. The guidelines development process was carefully planned and strictly adhered to the requirements of the Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF).