Education using a video system mounted into a traditional Macintosh blade improves intubation skills in medical students.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on health care systems worldwide, which has led to increased mortality of different diseases like myocardial infarction. This is most likely due to three factors. First, an increased workload per nurse ratio, a factor associated with mortality. Second, patients presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms are isolated, which also decreases survival in cases of emergency. And third, patients hesitate to see a doctor or present themselves at a hospital. To assess if this is also true for sepsis patients, we asked whether non-COVID-19 sepsis patients had an increased 30-day mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the SepsisDataNet.NRW study, a multicentric, prospective study that includes septic patients fulfilling the SEPSIS-3 criteria. Within this study, we compared the 30-day mortality and disease severity of patients recruited pre-pandemic (recruited from March 2018 until February 2020) with non-COVID-19 septic patients recruited during the pandemic (recruited from March 2020 till December 2020). Results Comparing septic patients recruited before the pandemic to those recruited during the pandemic, we found an increased raw 30-day mortality in sepsis-patients recruited during the pandemic (33% vs. 52%, p = 0.004). We also found a significant difference in the severity of disease at recruitment (SOFA score pre-pandemic: 8 (5 - 11) vs. pandemic: 10 (8 - 13); p < 0.001). When adjusted for this, the 30-day mortality rates were not significantly different between the two groups (52% vs. 52% pre-pandemic and pandemic, p = 0.798). Conclusions This led us to believe that the higher mortality of non-COVID19 sepsis patients during the pandemic might be attributed to a more severe septic disease at the time of recruitment. We note that patients may experience a delayed admission, as indicated by elevated SOFA scores. This could explain the higher mortality during the pandemic and we found no evidence for a diminished quality of care for critically ill sepsis patients in German intensive care units.

Background In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intravenous or balanced anesthesia. The studies identified were summarized in a meta-analysis with the standardized mean difference or risk ratio as the effect size. Results Ten studies provided data. The risk for PONV in the recovery room was significantly reduced for a combined anesthesia compared to a balanced anesthesia (RR 0.657, CI 0.502–0.860, p-value 0.002). There was no significant difference detected either in the time to extubation or in pain perception. Movement during surgery was significantly reduced for a combined compared to a total intravenous anesthesia (RR 0.241, CI 0.135–0.428, p-value 0.000). Conclusions The combination of propofol and volatiles may have some advantages in the early occurrence of PONV compared to a balanced anesthesia. To sufficiently evaluate potential advantages of a combination of volatiles and propofol further high-quality trials are needed. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42019126627.

Background A profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear. Methods In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed. Results Of the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068). Conclusions Although we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registrationDRKS00025794, German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de. Registered 6 July 2021.

No abstract