Dataset Information

[Treatment of sepsis-induced coagulopathy : Results of a Germany-wide survey in intensive care units].

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed.

Methods

In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

Results

A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.

SUBMITTER: Schmoch T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7869761 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE) is one of the most frequent causes of neurocognitive impairment in intensive care patients. It is associated with increased hospital mortality and poor long-term neurocognitive outcome. To date there are no evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the current clinical practice of diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE on intensive care units (ICU) in Germany.Material and methodsBased on available literature focusing on SAE, a questionnaire consisting of 26 items was designed and forwarded to 438 members of the Scientific Working Group for Intensive Care Medicine (WAKI) and the Scientific Working Group for Neuroanesthesia (WAKNA) as an online survey.ResultsThe total participation rate in the survey was 12.6% (55/438). A standardized diagnostic procedure of SAE was reported by 21.8% (12/55) of the participants. The majority of participants preferred delirium screening tools (50/55; 90.9%) and the clinical examination (49/55; 89.1%) to detect SAE. Brain imaging (26/55; 47.3%), laboratory/biomarker determination (15/55; 27.3%), electrophysiological techniques (14/55; 25.5%) and cerebrospinal fluid examination (12/55; 21.8%) are less frequently performed. The follow-up examination of SAE is most frequently performed by a clinical examination (45/55; 81.8%). Neuromonitoring techniques, such as continuous electroencephalography (31/55; 56.4%), transcranial doppler sonography (31/55; 56.4%) and near-infrared spectroscopy (18/55, 32.7%) are not frequently used. We observed statistically significant differences between the theoretically attributed importance and clinical practice. The great majority of respondents (48/55; 87.3%) endorse the development of guidelines containing recommendations for diagnostics and neuromonitoring in SAE.DiscussionThis explorative survey demonstrated a great heterogeneity in diagnostics and neuromonitoring of SAE in German ICUs. Uniform concepts have not yet been established but are desired by the majority of study participants. Innovative biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury in blood and cerebrospinal fluid as well as electrophysiological and brain imaging techniques could provide valuable prognostic information on the neurocognitive outcome of patients and would thus be a useful addition to the clinical assessment of ICU patients with SAE.

Project description:Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has recently become a useful tool that intensivists are incorporating into clinical practice. However, the incorporation of ultrasonography in critical care in developing countries is not straightforward. METHODS:Our objective was to investigate current practice and education regarding POCUS among Brazilian intensivists. A national survey was administered to Brazilian intensivists using an electronic questionnaire. Questions were selected by the Delphi method and assessed topics included organizational issues, POCUS technique and training patterns, machine availability, and main applications of POCUS in daily practice. RESULTS:Of 1533 intensivists who received the questionnaire, 322 responded from all of Brazil's regions. Two hundred and five (63.8%) reported having access to an ultrasound machine dedicated to the intensive care unit (ICU); however, this was more likely in university hospitals than in non-university hospitals (80.6 vs. 59.6%; risk ratio [RR]?=?1.35 [1.16-1.58], p?=?0.002). The main applications of POCUS were ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization (49.4%) and bedside echocardiographic assessment (33.9%). Two hundred and fifty-eight (80.0%) reported having at least one POCUS-trained intensivist in their staff (trained units). Trained units were more likely to perform routine ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization than non-trained units (38.6 vs. 16.4%; RR?=?2.35 [1.31-4.23], p?=?0.001). The proportion of POCUS-trained intensivists and availability of a dedicated ultrasound machine were both independently associated with performing ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization (RR?=?1.91 [1.32-2.77], p?=?0.001) and (RR?=?2.20 [1.26-3.29], p?=?0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:A significant proportion of Brazilian ICUs had at least one intensivist with POCUS capability in their staff. Although ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization constitutes the main application of POCUS, adherence to guideline recommendations is still suboptimal.