Introduction: COVID-19 is characterized by immunological responses to viral replication and coherent with endothelitis, microvascular disturbance of lung vasculature and coagulopathy. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is a proangiogenic mediator regulating endothelial changes. It is induced by proinflammatory signaling and hypoxia. We sought to determine whether VEGF levels differ between SARS-CoV-2-positive patients of different disease severity and whether VEGF might be useful in risk stratification. Methods: After retrospective screening of all SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated in Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin in 2020, we included those with documented VEGF measurement. We extracted laboratory values and clinical parameters. An exploratory data analysis was performed to detect possible relations between VEGF level and clinical disease features. Results: We included 167 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients of which 139 suffered from COVID-19. Seventy-one of the COVID-19 patients had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), those patients exhibited higher VEGF levels than those being admitted to normal wards (535 vs 279 pg/L, P < .001). APACHE-2 (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation Score) correlated with mortality and patients with high values showed higher VEGF concentrations on admission (456 vs 875 pg/L, p = 0.006). Receiver operating characteristic analytic revealed that the occurrence of organ dysfunctions like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), shock, or acute kidney injury could be predicted by VEGF. It was significantly higher in patients who later died compared to survivors (637 vs 389 pg/mL, P = 0.041) and predicted mortality with same accuracy as established markers. In our cohort, association of VEGF above 277 pg/L on admission with risk of ARDS could be confirmed in logistic regression adjusting for possible confounding factors (odds ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.34-7.7). Discussion: Even though there are several limitations to this retrospective study it revealed that in COVID-19 patients VEGF can contribute to the prediction of necessity of ICU, mortality and the prediction of ARDS, kidney injury or shock. Its use in risk stratification and potential pathogenetic involvement should be further investigated.

Background: Prehospital management of severely burned patients is extremely challenging. It should include adequate analgesia, decision-making on the necessity of prehospital endotracheal intubation and the administration of crystalloid fluids. Guidelines recommend immediate transport to specialised burn centres when certain criteria are met. To date, there is still insufficient knowledge on the characteristics of prehospital emergency treatment. We sought to investigate the current practice and its potential effects on patient outcome. Methods: We conducted a single centre, retrospective cohort analysis of severely burned patients (total burned surface area > 20%), admitted to the Berlin burn centre between 2014 and 2019. The relevant data was extracted from Emergency Medical Service reports and digital patient charts for exploratory data analysis. Primary outcome was 28-day-mortality. Results: Ninety patients (male/female 60/30, with a median age of 52 years [interquartile range, IQR 37–63], median total burned surface area 36% [IQR 25–51] and median body mass index 26.56 kg/m² [IQR 22.86–30.86] were included. The median time from trauma to ED arrival was 1 h 45 min; within this time, on average 1961 ml of crystalloid fluid (0.48 ml/kg/%TBSA, IQR 0.32–0.86) was administered. Most patients received opioid-based analgesia. Times from trauma to ED arrival were longer for patients who were intubated. Neither excessive fluid treatment (> 1000 ml/h) nor transport times > 2 h was associated with higher mortality. A total of 31 patients (34,4%) died within the hospital stay. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that non-survival was linked to age > 65 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% CI: 1.27–9.66), inhalation injury (OR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.36–9.36), burned surface area > 60% (OR 5.14, 95% CI 1.57–16.84) and prehospital intubation (5.38, 95% CI: 1.92–15.92). Conclusion: We showed that severely burned patients frequently received excessive fluid administration prehospitally and that this was not associated with more hemodynamic stability or outcome. In our cohort, patients were frequently intubated prehospitally, which was associated with increased mortality rates. Further research and emergency medical staff training should focus on adequate fluid application and cautious decision-making on the risks and benefits of prehospital intubation. Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Registry (ID: DRKS00033516).

Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund: Das Ankommen auf der Intensivstation ist für Fachkräfte entscheidend, um hochqualitative Patient:innenversorgung gewährleisten zu können. Dieser Prozess hängt von der Einarbeitungsqualität ab. Ziel der Arbeit: Ziel der Arbeit ist die Erfassung von Art und Umfang der Einarbeitung und der Zufriedenheit von jungen Fachkräften auf der Intensivstation. Material und Methoden: In einer anonymen, berufsgruppenübergreifenden Onlineumfrage wurde die Einarbeitungsstruktur sowie Zufriedenheit untersucht. Ergebnisse: Von 554 Teilnehmenden kamen etwa zwei Drittel aus dem ärztlichen Bereich. Während bei der Pflege 59 % ein schriftliches Einarbeitungskonzept aufwiesen, lag ein solches nur bei 27 % der Ärzt:innen vor. Pflegefachpersonen gaben im Median 30 Tage als Einarbeitungszeit, Ärzt:innen 7 Tage an. Ein Drittel der Pflegefachpersonen stimmte der Aussage zu, ausreichend durch die Einarbeitung auf die intensivmedizinische Tätigkeit vorbereitet worden zu sein. Im ärztlichen Bereich fühlten sich nur 17 % der Teilnehmenden ausreichend durch die Einarbeitung vorbereitet. Mehr als 42 % der Befragten konnten sich vorstellen, noch länger als 3 Jahre in der Intensivmedizin tätig zu sein. Diskussion: Evidenzbasierte Methoden zur Strukturierung der Einarbeitung von neuen Fachkräften sind in deutschen Intensivstationen nur gering verbreitet. Die Einarbeitungszeit liegt weit unter publizierten Empfehlungen. Auch wenn bezüglich der materiellen und personellen Ausstattung Defizite wahrgenommen werden, geben die meisten Befragten Zufriedenheit mit Lernzuwachs und interprofessioneller Zusammenarbeit an.

Background: Finding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient’s pre-existing conditions influence requirements. Methods: We analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol. Results: The mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11, p = 0.05) and TBSA (35 vs. 51%, p < 0.001), while patients with a restrictive fluid therapy needed fewer incidences of surgery to cover burn wounds (3.5 vs. 9.0 vs. 7.0, p = 0.008). History of liver disease or alcohol abuse tended to indicate excessive fluid administration. Patients with pre-existing heart failure received restrictive fluid therapy (23 vs. 3 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Individualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.

Adequate fluid therapy is crucial to maintain organ function after burn trauma. Major burns lead to a systemic response with fluid loss and cardiac dysfunction. To guide fluid therapy, measurement of cardiac pre- and afterload is helpful. Whereas cardiac function is usually measured after admission to intensive care unit (ICU), in this study, hemodynamic monitoring was performed directly after arrival at hospital. We conducted a prospective cohort study with inclusion of 19 patients (male/female 13/6, 55 ± 18 years, mean total body surface area 36 ± 19%). Arterial waveform analysis (PulsioFlexProAqt^®, Getinge) was implemented immediately after admission to hospital to measure cardiac pre- and afterload and to guide resuscitation therapy. Cardiac parameters 3.75 (2.67-6.0) h after trauma were normal regarding cardiac index (3.45 ± 0.82) L/min/m², systemic vascular resistance index (1749 ± 533) dyn sec/cm⁵ m², and stroke volume (SV; 80 ± 20) mL. Stroke volume variation (SVV) was increased (21 ± 7) % and associated with mortality (mean SVV survivors vs nonsurvivors 18.92 (±6.37) % vs 27.6 (±5.68) %, P = .017). Stroke volume was associated with mortality at the time of ICU-admission (mean SV survivors vs nonsurvivors 90 (±20) mL vs 50 (±0) mL, P = .004). Changes after volume challenge were significant for SVV (24 ± 9 vs19 ± 8%, P = .01) and SV (68 ± 24 vs 76 ± 26 mL, P = .03). We described association of SVV and SV with survival of severely burned patients in an observational study. This indicates high valence of those parameters in the early postburn period. The use of an autocalibrated device enables a very early monitoring of parameters relevant to burn shock survival.