Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support under extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is the last option and may be offered to selected patients. Several factors predict outcome in these patients, including initial heart rhythm, comorbidities, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We evaluated outcomes of all VA-ECMO patients treated within the last 5 years at our center in respect to low-flow duration during CPR. We report retrospective registry data on all patients with eCPR treated at a university hospital between October 2010 and May 2016. A total of 133 patients (mean age 58.7 ± 2.6 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score at admission 48.1 ± 3.4) were included in the analysis. The indication for eCPR was either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without return of spontaneous circulation (n = 74 and 59, respectively). There was a significant difference in survival rates between groups (eCPR in-hospital cardiac arrest [IHCA] 18.9%, eCPR out-of-hospital cardiac arrest [OHCA] 8.5%; p < 0.042). Mean low-flow duration (i.e., duration of mechanical CPR until VA-ECMO support) was 59.6 ± 5.0 minutes in all patients and significantly shorter in IHCA patients than in OHCA patients (49.6 ± 5.9 vs. 72.2 ± 7.4 minutes, p = 0.001). Low-flow time strongly correlated with survival (p < 0.001) and was an independent predictor of mortality. Time to full support is an important and alterable predictor of patient survival in eCPR, suggesting that VA-ECMO therapy should be established as fast as possible in the selected patients destined for eCPR.

The city of Freiburg has been among the most affected regions by the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. In out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care, all parts of the rescue system were exposed to profound infrastructural changes. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of these changes in the resuscitation landscape in the Freiburg region. Utstein-style quantitative data on OHCA with CPR initiated, occurring in the first pandemic wave between February 27th, 2020 and April 30th, 2020 were compared to the same time periods between 2016 and 2019. Additionally, qualitative changes in the entire rescue system were analyzed and described. Incidence of OHCA with attempted CPR did not significantly increase during the pandemic period (11.1/100.000 inhabitants/63 days vs 10.4/100.000 inhabitants/63 days, p = 1.000). In witnessed cases, bystander-CPR decreased significantly from 57.7% (30/52) to 25% (4/16) (p = 0.043). A severe pre-existing condition (PEC) was documented more often, 66.7% (16/24) vs 38.2% (39/102) there were longer emergency medical services (EMS) response times, more resuscitation attempts terminated on scene, 62.5% (15/24) vs. 34.3% (35/102) and less patients transported to hospital (p = 0.019). Public basic life support courses, an app-based first-responder alarm system, Kids Save Lives activities and a prehospital extracorporeal CPR (eCPR) service were paused during the peak of the pandemic. In our region, bystander CPR in witnessed OHCA cases as well as the number of patients transported to hospital significantly decreased during the first pandemic wave. Several important parts of the resuscitation landscape were paused. The COVID-19 pandemic impedes OHCA care, which leads to additional casualties. Countermeasures should be taken.

Background: Delirium complicating the course of Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy is a known driver of morbidity and mortality. It has been speculated that infection with the neurotrophic SARS-CoV-2 might promote delirium. Methods: Retrospective registry analysis including all patients treated at least 48 h on a medical intensive care unit. The primary endpoint was development of delirium as diagnosed by Nursing Delirium screening scale ≥2. Results were confirmed by propensity score matching. Results: 542 patients were included. The primary endpoint was reached in 352/542 (64.9%) patients, without significant differences between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients (51.4% and 65.9%, respectively, p = 0.07) and correlated with prolonged ICU stay in both groups. In a subgroup of patients with ICU stay >10 days delirium was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients (p ≤ 0.01). After adjustment for confounders, COVID-19 correlated independently with less ICU delirium (p ≤ 0.01). In the propensity score matched cohort, patients with COVID-19 had significantly lower delirium incidence compared to the matched control patients (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: Delirium is frequent in critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 treated at an intensive care unit. Data suggests that COVID-19 itself is not a driver of delirium per se.

Background: Germany reported sufficient intensive care unit (ICU) resources throughout the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients without rationing may improve the outcome. We therefore analyzed ICU resources allocated to COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure and their outcomes. Methods: Retrospectively, we enrolled severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients with respiratory failure from 03/08/2020 to 04/08/2020 and followed until 05/28/2020 in the university hospital of Freiburg, Germany. Results: In the defined interval, 34 COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU with median age of 67±13 (31-86) years. Six of 34 (17.6%) were female. All patients suffered from moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 91.2% of the patients were intubated and 23.5% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Proning was performed in 67.6%, renal replacement therapy (RRT) was required in 35.3%. Ninety-six percent required more than 20 nursing hours per day. Mean ICU stay was 21±19 (1-81) days. Sixty-day survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients was 50.0% (17/34). Causes of death were multi-organ failure (52.9%), refractory ARDS (17.6%) and intracerebral hemorrhage (17.6%). Conclusions: Treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients is protracted and resource-intense. In a context without resources shortage, 50% of COVID-19 with respiratory failure survived up to 60 days.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who are admitted to intensive care units (ICU) have a high risk of requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) due to acute kidney injury (AKI). Concomitantly, COVID-19 patients exhibit a state of hypercoagulability that can affect circuit lifespan. An optimal anticoagulation strategy is therefore needed in order to maintain circuit patency and therapeutic efficiency of RRT. Methods: Retrospective single-centre cohort study on 71 critically ill COVID-19 patients at the University of Freiburg Medical Center. Included were all patients aged 18 years and older with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that were admitted to ICU between February 26 and May 21, 2020. We collected data on the COVID-19 disease course, AKI, RRT, thromboembolic events and anticoagulation. Primary outcome of the study was the effect of different anticoagulation strategies during RRT on extracorporeal circuit lifespans. Results: Anticoagulation during continuous veno-venous haemodialysis (CVVHD) was performed with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or citrate. Mean treatment time in the UFH group was 21.3h (SEM: ±5.6h). Mean treatment time in the citrate group was 45.6h (SEM: ±2.7h). Citrate anticoagulation prolonged treatment duration significantly by 24.4h ( p= 0.0014). Anticoagulation during sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) was performed with UFH, argatroban or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Mean dialysis time with UFH was 8.1h (SEM: ±1.3h), argatroban 8.0h (SEM: ±0.9h) and LMWH 11.8h (SEM: ±0.5h). Compared to UFH and argatroban, LMWH significantly prolonged treatment times by 3.7h ( p= 0.0082) and 3.8h ( p= 0.0024), respectively. Conclusions: UFH fails to prevent early clotting events in dialysis circuits. For patients, who do not require an effective systemic anticoagulation, regional citrate dialysis is the most effective strategy in our cohort. For patients, who require an effective systemic anticoagulation treatment, the usage of LMWH results in the longest circuit life spans. Funding: Berta-Ottenstein-Programme for Clinician Scientists, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany. Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, Bad Homburg, Germany. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany.

Background/objectives: Metamizole (dipyrone) is a non-opioid analgesic and antipyretic widely used in Germany, with prescriptions having increased more than tenfold since 1997. Despite its popularity, metamizole remains controversial due to the risk of agranulocytosis–a potentially life-threatening adverse reaction that can occur independently of dose or duration of therapy. This study aimed to describe severe cases of metamizole-induced agranulocytosis requiring intensive care treatment and to contextualize them within current consumption data. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all patients admitted to the interdisciplinary medical intensive care units of a tertiary university hospital in southern Germany between April 2022 and April 2025 due to metamizole-associated agranulocytosis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Bone marrow examinations, microbiological findings, treatment regimens, and outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Results: Seven patients required intensive care for metamizole-induced agranulocytosis. All presented with profound neutropenia and severe infections. Two patients died from multiorgan failure despite maximal supportive care. The five survivors experienced prolonged ICU stays (11–60 days) with complications including septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and renal failure requiring dialysis. None of the patients had pre-existing hematologic disorders or immunosuppression. Conclusion: Metamizole-induced agranulocytosis is a rare but potentially severe adverse reaction. Even though its absolute incidence is low relative to the widespread use of metamizole, affected patients may experience life-threatening complications. Awareness of this risk, combined with careful benefit–risk assessment and consideration of alternative analgesics, remains essential for safe and rational use of metamizole in clinical practice.