Dickel Steffen, Grimm Clemens, Popp Maria, Struwe Claudia, Sachkova Alexandra, Golinski Martin, Seeber Christian, Fichtner Falk, Heise Daniel, Kranke Peter, Meissner Winfried, Laudi Sven, Voigt-Radloff Sebastian, Meerpohl Joerg, Moerer Onnen
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2021 Jul 29;10(15):3363. doi: 10.3390/jcm10153363.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and-in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed-better communication to care providers.
This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020.
We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs ( = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table.
We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care.
冠状病毒病(COVID-19)最近在科学文献中占据主导地位。对该疾病的病理生理学、流行病学和最佳治疗方法的理解不完整以及数据缺乏,导致了相互矛盾的建议。迄今为止,尚未对遵循现有指南情况和实际治疗策略进行系统研究。我们假设,捕捉治疗差异将有助于发现需要进一步研究的方面,并且在干预措施被证明有益但未实施的情况下,能更好地与医疗服务提供者沟通。
本文基于德国CEOsys(COVID-19证据生态系统)网络在2020年12月3日至12月31日期间对德国重症监护医师进行的一项定量和定性横断面混合方法在线调查,该调查得到了德国重症监护与急诊医学跨学科协会(DIVI)的认可。
我们确定了德国各医院之间治疗差异特别大的几个护理领域。至关重要的是,51.5%的参与重症监护病房(n = 205)报告称,将插管作为COVID-19患者呼吸衰竭的最后手段,而21.8%在患者入院后早期就使用了插管。此外,11.5%考虑对清醒患者使用体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)。最后,72.3%的受访者使用ARDS网络表来滴定呼气末正压(PEEP)水平,其中36.9%选择低PEEP表,41.8%选择高PEEP表。
我们发现报告的治疗策略之间存在显著差异,并且对已发表指南的遵循情况各不相同。我们根据研究结果描述了未来研究的必要步骤,突出了护理中显著的临床差异。