Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Benzodiazepines (1)
- Cardiac anesthesia (1)
- Consumer preference (1)
- Etomidate (1)
- Infection (1)
- Intensive care (1)
- Lormetazepam (1)
- Meat substitute (1)
- Meathybrid (1)
- Midazolam (1)
Institute
- Fakultät AuL (4)
High levels of meat consumption are increasingly being criticised for ethical, environmental, and social reasons. Plant-based meat substitutes have been with reservations identified as healthy sources of protein in comparison to meat. This alternative offers several social, environmental, and probably health benefits, and it may play a role in reducing meat consumption. However, there has been a lack of research on how specific meat substitute attributes can influence consumers to replace or partially replace meat in their diets. Research has demonstrated that, in many countries, consumers are highly attached to meat. They consider it to be an essential and integral element of their daily diet. For the consumers that are not interested in vegan or vegetarian alternatives to meat, so-called meathybrids could be a low-threshold option for a more sustainable food consumption behaviour. In meathybrids, only a fraction of the meat product (e.g., 20% to 50%) is replaced with plant-based proteins. In this paper, the results of an online survey with 500 German consumers are presented with a focus on preferences and attitudes relating to meathyrids. The results show that more than fifty percent of consumers substitute meat at least occasionally. Thus, approximately half of the respondents reveal an eligible consumption behaviour with respect to sustainability and healthiness to a certain degree. Regarding the determinants of choosing either meathybrid or meat, it becomes evident that the highest effect is exerted by the health perception. The healthier meathybrids are perceived, the higher is the choice probability. Thus, this egoistic motive seems to outperform altruistic motives, like animal welfare or environmental concerns, when it comes to choice for this new product category.
A brief questionnaire for measuring alarm fatigue in nurses and physicians in intensive care units
(2023)
When exposed to hundreds of medical device alarms per day, intensive care unit (ICU) staff can develop “alarm fatigue” (i.e., desensitisation to alarms). However, no standardised way of quantifying alarm fatigue exists. We aimed to develop a brief questionnaire for measuring alarm fatigue in nurses and physicians. After developing a list of initial items based on a literature review, we conducted 15 cognitive interviews with the target group (13 nurses and two physicians) to ensure that the items are face valid and comprehensible. We then asked 32 experts on alarm fatigue to judge whether the items are suited for measuring alarm fatigue. The resulting 27 items were sent to nurses and physicians from 15 ICUs of a large German hospital. We used exploratory factor analysis to further reduce the number of items and to identify scales. A total of 585 submissions from 707 participants could be analysed (of which 14% were physicians and 64% were nurses). The simple structure of a two-factor model was achieved within three rounds. The final questionnaire (called Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire; CAFQa) consists of nine items along two scales (i.e., the “alarm stress scale” and the “alarm coping scale”). The CAFQa is a brief questionnaire that allows clinical alarm researchers to quantify the alarm fatigue of nurses and physicians. It should not take more than five minutes to administer.
Background:
Etomidate is typically used as an induction agent in cardiac surgery because it has little impact on hemodynamics. It is a known suppressor of adrenocortical function and may increase the risk for post-operative infections, sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether etomidate increases the risk of postoperative sepsis (primary outcome) and infections (secondary outcome) compared to propofol.
Methods:
This was a retrospective before–after trial (IRB EA1/143/20) performed at a tertiary medical center in Berlin, Germany, between 10/2012 and 01/2015. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were investigated within two observation intervals, during which etomidate and propofol were the sole induction agents.
Results:
One-thousand, four-hundred, and sixty-two patients, and 622 matched pairs, after caliper propensity-score matching, were included in the final analysis. Sepsis rates did not differ in the matched cohort (etomidate: 11.5% vs. propofol: 8.2%, p = 0.052). Patients in the etomidate interval were more likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia (etomidate: 18.6% vs. propofol: 14.0%, p = 0.031).
Conclusion:
Our study showed that a single-dose of etomidate is not statistically associated with higher postoperative sepsis rates after cardiac surgery, but is associated with a higher incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, there is a notable trend towards a higher sepsis rate.
The benzodiazepine, midazolam, is one of the most frequently used sedatives in intensive care medicine, but it has an unfavorable pharmacokinetic profile when continuously applied. As a consequence, patients are frequently prolonged and more deeply sedated than intended. Due to its distinct pharmacological features, including a cytochrome P450-independent metabolization, intravenous lormetazepam might be clinically advantageous compared to midazolam. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared patients who received either intravenous lormetazepam or midazolam with respect to their survival and sedation characteristics. The cohort included 3314 mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients that received one of the two drugs in a tertiary medical center in Germany between 2006 and 2018. A Cox proportional hazards model with mortality as outcome and APACHE II, age, gender, and admission mode as covariates revealed a hazard ratio of 1.75 [95% CI 1.46–2.09; p < 0.001] for in-hospital mortality associated with the use of midazolam. After additionally adjusting for sedation intensity, the HR became 1.04 [95% CI 0.83–1.31; p = 0.97]. Thus, we concluded that excessive sedation occurs more frequently in critically ill patients treated with midazolam than in patients treated with lormetazepam. These findings require further investigation in prospective trials to assess if lormetazepam, due to its ability to maintain light sedation, might be favorable over other benzodiazepines for sedation in the ICU.