Background: Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used. Results: In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature. Conclusion: The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.

Objectives: The ongoing coronavirus pandemic is challenging, especially in severely affected patients who require intubation and sedation. Although the potential benefits of sedation with volatile anesthetics in coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently being discussed, the use of isoflurane in patients with coronavirus disease 2019–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome has not yet been reported. Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Setting: The study was conducted with patients admitted between April 4 and May 15, 2020 to our ICU. Patients: We included five patients who were previously diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Intervention: Even with high doses of several IV sedatives, the targeted level of sedation could not be achieved. Therefore, the sedation regimen was switched to inhalational isoflurane. Clinical data were recorded using a patient data management system. We recorded demographical data, laboratory results, ventilation variables, sedative dosages, sedation level, prone positioning, duration of volatile sedation and outcomes. Measurements & Main Results: Mean age (four men, one women) was 53.0 (± 12.7) years. The mean duration of isoflurane sedation was 103.2 (± 66.2) hours. Our data demonstrate a substantial improvement in the oxygenation ratio when using isoflurane sedation. Deep sedation as assessed by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale was rapidly and closely controlled in all patients, and the subsequent discontinuation of IV sedation was possible within the first 30 minutes. No adverse events were detected. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of isoflurane sedation in five patients suffering from severe coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Volatile isoflurane was able to achieve the required deep sedation and reduced the need for IV sedation.

Epidural catheterization has become an indispensable part of modern pain therapy, for example, in obstetrics. Learning how to master this skill is an important competency. Videos are among the information sources with the highest information content for learning such skills. The present study aims to analyze videos regarding epidural catheter placement provided on the YouTube platform based on a validated checklist. An expert workshop selected crucial items for learning epidural catheterization in obstetrics. Items were identified and optimized in a five-step testing process. Using this checklist, videos from YouTube were evaluated by eleven health care professionals. Sixteen videos were identified and analyzed. Concerning the catheterization-specific part of the checklist, only two videos showed satisfactory quality. In the didactic part, eleven out of 21 items reached a mean score >50% of the points. Regarding interrater reliability, the catheterization-specific checklist was shown to be substantial (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.610), and the didactic part was shown to be fair (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.401). Overall, standard monitoring and appropriate aseptic technique were followed in only 42% and 49% for the procedure. There was a significant correlation between the runtime and the content quality (p < 0.001). No correlation could be found in terms of platform rating parameters. The video quality varied highly in terms of the requirements of this practical skill. The majority appear unsuitable for self-study due to serious errors and deficiencies regarding patient safety. However, there is no quality control on free platforms. Accordingly, it is difficult to identify suitable videos for educational purposes.

The coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge global healthcare. Severely affected patients are often in need of high doses of analgesics and sedatives. The latter was studied in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in this prospective monocentric analysis. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients admitted between 1 April and 1 December 2020 were enrolled in the study. A statistical analysis of impeded sedation using mixed-effect linear regression models was performed. Overall, 114 patients were enrolled, requiring unusual high levels of sedatives. During 67.9% of the observation period, a combination of sedatives was required in addition to continuous analgesia. During ARDS therapy, 85.1% (n = 97) underwent prone positioning. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) was required in 20.2% (n = 23) of all patients. vv-ECMO patients showed significantly higher sedation needs (p < 0.001). Patients with hepatic (p = 0.01) or renal (p = 0.01) dysfunction showed significantly lower sedation requirements. Except for patient age (p = 0.01), we could not find any significant influence of pre-existing conditions. Age, vv-ECMO therapy and additional organ failure could be demonstrated as factors influencing sedation needs. Young patients and those receiving vv-ECMO usually require increased sedation for intensive care therapy. However, further studies are needed to elucidate the causes and mechanisms of impeded sedation.

Introduction: Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are a topic of major public interest, and their potential benefits and threats are a subject of discussion. The potential contribution of these models to health care is widely discussed. However, few studies to date have examined LLMs. For example, the potential use of LLMs in (individualized) informed consent remains unclear. Methods: We analyzed the performance of the LLMs ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, and Gemini with regard to their ability to create an information sheet for six basic anesthesiologic procedures in response to corresponding questions. We performed multiple attempts to create forms for anesthesia and analyzed the results checklists based on existing standard sheets. Results: None of the LLMs tested were able to create a legally compliant information sheet for any basic anesthesiologic procedure. Overall, fewer than one-third of the risks, procedural descriptions, and preparations listed were covered by the LLMs. Conclusions: There are clear limitations of current LLMs in terms of practical application. Advantages in the generation of patient-adapted risk stratification within individual informed consent forms are not available at the moment, although the potential for further development is difficult to predict.

Background: Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring. Results: We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36. Conclusions: Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.