Purpose: Timely and accurate data on the epidemiology of sepsis are essential to inform policy decisions and research priorities. We aimed to investigate the validity of inpatient administrative health data (IAHD) for surveillance and quality assurance of sepsis care. Methods: We conducted a retrospective validation study in a disproportional stratified random sample of 10,334 inpatient cases of age ≥ 15 years treated in 2015–2017 in ten German hospitals. The accuracy of coding of sepsis and risk factors for mortality in IAHD was assessed compared to reference standard diagnoses obtained by a chart review. Hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis as calculated from IAHD information was compared to mortality calculated from chart review information. Results: ICD-coding of sepsis in IAHD showed high positive predictive value (76.9–85.7% depending on sepsis definition), but low sensitivity (26.8–38%), which led to an underestimation of sepsis incidence (1.4% vs. 3.3% for severe sepsis-1). Not naming sepsis in the chart was strongly associated with under-coding of sepsis. The frequency of correctly naming sepsis and ICD-coding of sepsis varied strongly between hospitals (range of sensitivity of naming: 29–71.7%, of ICD-diagnosis: 10.7–58.5%). Risk-adjusted mortality of sepsis per hospital calculated from coding in IAHD showed no substantial correlation to reference standard risk-adjusted mortality (r = 0.09). Conclusion: Due to the under-coding of sepsis in IAHD, previous epidemiological studies underestimated the burden of sepsis in Germany. There is a large variability between hospitals in accuracy of diagnosing and coding of sepsis. Therefore, IAHD alone is not suited to assess quality of sepsis care.

Background: To assess the prevalence of Herpes simplex and Cytomegalovirus infection in respiratory samples of critically-ill COVID-19 patients, its role in outcome and mortality and the influence of dexamethasone treatment in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: All mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated on ICU between March 2020 and January 2021 were included. Respiratory specimens were tested for Herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1, 2 and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) by quantitative real-time PCR. Clinical parameters were compared in the cohort cohorts with and without HSV-1-infection.Results: 134 patients with a median age of 72.5 years (73.0% male, n=98) were included. HSV-1 reactivation occurred in 61 patients (45.5%), after median 9 (7-13) days of mechanical ventilation. The main factor for reactivation was length of stay on ICU (24 days vs 13 days, p<0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (417 vs 214 hours, p<0.001). Treatment with dexamethasone and a history of immunosuppression did not associate with HSV-infection in the univariate analysis (39 vs 41, p=0.462 and 27.9% vs 23.3%, p=0.561, respectively). Both ICU and hospital mortality were not significantly different in the cohorts with and without HSV-infection (57.4% vs 45.2%, p=0.219).Conclusions: Our study shows a high prevalence of HSV-infection in critically-ill COVID-19 patients which was unexpectedly higher than the prevalence of CMV-infections and unrelated to dexamethasone treatment. The main risk factors for HSV and CMV in the studied cohorts were the length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Therefore, we recommend routine monitoring of critically ill COVID-19 patients for these viral co-infections and consider treatment in those patients.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. Bacterial superinfections seem to be associated with higher mortality in COVID-19 patients in intensive care units (ICUs). However, details on the prevalence and species distribution of secondary infections are limited. Moreover, the increasing use of dexamethasone may pose an additional risk of superinfections.Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective study of the clinical and microbiological characteristics of 154 COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and January 2021, focusing on bacterial infections, use of antimicrobial agents and dexamethasone therapy.Results: The median age was 68 years; 67.5% of the patients were men. Critically ill COVID-19 patients were treated with dexamethasone since July 2020 (second wave), which was not common during the first wave of the pandemic. In the dexamethasone group (n=90, 58.4%), respiratory pathogens were detected more frequently, as were multidrug-resistant pathogens. The number of patients with polymicrobial detection of respiratory pathogens was significantly increased (p=0.013). The most frequently detected species were Enterobacterales, Staphylococcus aureus, and Aspergillus fumigatus. The rates of bloodstream infections did not differ between the groups. The use of dexamethasone in ICU COVID-19 patients was associated with higher rates of respiratory infectious complications.Conclusions: Secondary infections are present in a substantial fraction of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Respiratory pathogens were detectable in the majority of COVID-19 ICU patients. The use of dexamethasone poses a potential risk of secondary pulmonary infections. Infectious complications in patients with dexamethasone therapy could be associated with worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Simulation and evaluation of a prioritization protocol at a German university hospital using a convergent parallel mixed methods design. DESIGN: Prospective single-center cohort study with a quantitative analysis of ICU patients and qualitative content analysis of two focus groups with intensivists. SETTING: Five ICUs of internal medicine and anesthesiology at a German university hospital. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill ICU patients (n = 53). INTERVENTIONS: After training the attending senior ICU physicians (n = 13) in rationing, an impending ICU congestion was simulated. All ICU patients were rated according to their likelihood to survive their acute illness (good-moderate-unfavorable). From each ICU, the two patients with the most unfavorable prognosis (n = 10) were evaluated by five prioritization teams for triage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients nominated for prioritization visit (n = 10) had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and already a longer stay at the hospital and on the ICU compared with the other patients. The order within this worst prognosis group was not congruent between the five teams. However, an in-hospital mortality of 80% confirmed the reasonable match with the lowest predicted probability of survival. Qualitative data highlighted the tremendous burden of triage and the need for a team-based consensus-oriented decision-making approach to ensure best possible care and to support professionals. Transparent communication within the teams, the hospital, and to the public was seen as essential for prioritization implementation. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate potential bias and to reduce the emotional burden of triage, a consensus-oriented, interdisciplinary, and collaborative approach should be implemented. Prognostic comparative assessment by intensivists is feasible. The combination of long-term ICU stay and consistently high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores resulted in a greater risk for triage in patients. It remains challenging to reliably differentiate between patients with very low chances to survive and requires further conceptual and empirical research.

Background: Economic restrictions and workforce cuts have continually challenged conventional autopsies. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has added tissue quality and safety requirements to the investigation of this disease, thereby launching efforts to upgrade autopsy strategies. Methods: In this proof-of-concept study, we performed bedside ultrasound-guided minimally invasive autopsy (US-MIA) in the ICU of critically ill COVID-19 patients using a structured protocol to obtain non-autolyzed tissue. Biopsies were assessed for their quality (vitality) and length of biopsy (mm) and for diagnosis. The efficiency of the procedure was monitored in five cases by recording the time of each step and safety issues by swabbing personal protective equipment and devices for viral contamination. Findings: Ultrasound examination and tissue procurement required a mean time period of 13 min and 54 min, respectively. A total of 318 multiorgan biopsies were obtained from five patients. Quality and vitality standards were fulfilled, which not only allowed for specific histopathological diagnosis but also the reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 virions in unexpected organs using electronic microscopy and RNA-expressing techniques. Interpretation: Bedside multidisciplinary US-MIA allows for the fast and efficient acquisition of autolytic-free tissue and offers unappreciated potential to overcome the limitations of research in postmortem studies.

Background: A wide range of mortality rates has been reported in COVID-19 patients on the intensive care unit. We wanted to describe the clinical course and determine the mortality rate in our institution’s intensive care units.Methods: To this end, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 50 COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at a large German tertiary university hospital. Clinical features are reported with a focus on ICU interventions, such as mechanical ventilation, prone positioning and extracorporeal organ support. Outcome is presented using a 7-point ordinal scale on day 28 and 60 following ICU admission.Results: The median age was 64 years, 78% were male. LDH and D-Dimers were elevated, and patients were low on Vitamin D. ARDS incidence was 75%, and 43/50 patients needed invasive ventilation. 22/50 patients intermittently needed prone positioning, and 7/50 required ECMO. The interval from onset of the first symptoms to admission to the hospital and to the ICU was shorter in non-survivors than in survivors. By day 60 after ICU admission, 52% of the patients had been discharged. 60-day mortality rate was 32%; 37% for ventilated patients, and 42% for those requiring both: ventilation and renal replacement therapy.Conclusions: Early deterioration might be seen as a warning signal for unfavourable outcome. Lung-protective ventilation including prone positioning remain the mainstay of the treatment.