Background: Patients in palliative care need rapid-acting pharmacological options for psychological distress. Nmethyl-D-aspartate antagonist ketamine is known to have a fast onset of anti-depressant and anxiolytic action. Its Senantiomer S-ketamine (or esketamine) is an analgesic used as a routine treatment for refractory pain as an intravenous infusion (0.25 mg/kg over 45 min). This study investigates whether S-ketamine pain therapy has a positive impact on psychological distress caused by anxiety and depression in palliative care. Methods: Patient routine data from a palliative care unit of a tertiary care hospital were used in a retrospective analysis after positive ethics approval. Eight patients, who received analgesic S-ketamine treatment, were compared to a control group matched by gender and age. The main analysis was conducted using three-way mixed MANOVA followed by two-way mixed ANOVA. Target variables were the values for anxiety and depression in the state-trait anxiety-depression inventory STADI. The predictor variables were the time of measurement before (T1) and after (T2) S-ketamine application and group membership. Results: Comparison of the S-ketamine group (n = 8; 4 male, 4 female; average age 52 years) with the control group (n = 8; 3 male, 5 female; average age 55 years) revealed a significant multivariate effect on anxiety and depression F(1, 14) = 4.78; p = 0.046; r = 0.50. The univariate comparisons showed a significant reduction of the anxiety scores from T1 to T2 in the S-ketamine group compared to the control group F(1, 14) = 10.14; p = 0.007; r = 0.65. With regard to depression, there was no significant reduction from T1 to T2 in the group comparison F(1, 14) = 1.60; p = 0.23; r = 0.32. No long-lasting effects on pain were found. Conclusions: Our findings show that psychological distress of patients in palliative care may improve after a single administration of S-ketamine, which mainly alleviates anxiety in those patients. Limitations of this study arise from non-randomization, retrospective analysis and low sample size. Therefore, further prospective and ideally randomized studies are necessary.

Clinical predictions alone are insufficiently accurate to identify patients with specific types of bloodstream infection; laboratory assays might improve such predictions. Therefore, we performed a prospective cohort study of 356 episodes of sepsis syndrome and did Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assays for endotoxin. The main outcome measures were bacteremia and infection due to gram-negative organisms; other types of infection were secondary outcomes. Assays were defined as positive if the result was > or = 0.4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units per milliliter. There were positive assays in 119 (33%) of 356 episodes. Assay positivity correlated with the presence of fungal bloodstream infection (P < .003) but correlated negatively with the presence of gram-negative organisms in the bloodstream (P = .04). A trend toward higher rates of mortality in the LAL assay-positive episodes was no longer present after adjusting for severity. Thus, results of LAL assay did not correlate with the presence of bacteremia due to gram-negative organisms or with mortality after adjusting for severity but did correlate with the presence of fungal bloodstream infection.

BackgroundAspecific scoring systems are used to predict the risk of death postsurgery in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). The purpose of the present study was both to analyze the risk factors for in‐hospital death, which complicates surgery for IE, and to create a mortality risk score based on the results of this analysis.Methods and ResultsOutcomes of 361 consecutive patients (mean age, 59.1±15.4 years) who had undergone surgery for IE in 8 European centers of cardiac surgery were recorded prospectively, and a risk factor analysis (multivariable logistic regression) for in‐hospital death was performed. The discriminatory power of a new predictive scoring system was assessed with the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Score validation procedures were carried out. Fifty‐six (15.5%) patients died postsurgery. BMI >27 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P=0.049), estimated glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min (OR, 3.52; P<0.0001), New York Heart Association class IV (OR, 2.11; P=0.024), systolic pulmonary artery pressure >55 mm Hg (OR, 1.78; P=0.032), and critical state (OR, 2.37; P=0.017) were independent predictors of in‐hospital death. A scoring system was devised to predict in‐hospital death postsurgery for IE (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.780; 95% CI, 0.734–0.822). The score performed better than 5 of 6 scoring systems for in‐hospital death after cardiac surgery that were considered.ConclusionsA simple scoring system based on risk factors for in‐hospital death was specifically created to predict mortality risk postsurgery in patients with IE.

Background In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, general and specialist Palliative Care (PC) plays an essential role in health care, contributing to symptom control, psycho-social support, and providing support in complex decision making. Numbers of COVID-19 related deaths have recently increased demanding more palliative care input. Also, the pandemic impacts on palliative care for non-COVID-19 patients. Strategies on the care for seriously ill and dying people in pandemic times are lacking. Therefore, the program ‘Palliative care in Pandemics’ (PallPan) aims to develop and consent a national pandemic plan for the care of seriously ill and dying adults and their informal carers in pandemics including (a) guidance for generalist and specialist palliative care of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infections on the micro, meso and macro level, (b) collection and development of information material for an online platform, and (c) identification of variables and research questions on palliative care in pandemics for the national pandemic cohort network (NAPKON). Methods Mixed-methods project including ten work packages conducting (online) surveys and qualitative interviews to explore and describe i) experiences and burden of patients (with/without SARS-CoV-2 infection) and their relatives, ii) experiences, challenges and potential solutions of health care professionals, stakeholders and decision makers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The work package results inform the development of a consensus-based guidance. In addition, best practice examples and relevant literature will be collected and variables for data collection identified. Discussion For a future “pandemic preparedness” national and international recommendations and concepts for the care of severely ill and dying people are necessary considering both generalist and specialist palliative care in the home care and inpatient setting.