Background Z-drugs are usually prescribed as first line pharmacological therapy for insomnia. However, the benefits and risks of Z-drugs may differ for older adults. This systematic review investigated the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Z-drugs in the management of insomnia in older adults. Methods The Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, controlled interventional and observational studies using a pre-formulated search term. The target population was older adults (≥65 years old) with insomnia. Studies were included if they reported efficacy and/or safety outcomes of the use of Z-drugs for the management of insomnia compared to placebo, usual or no treatment, or other pharmacological agents. Results Eighteen studies were included (8 interventional and 10 observational studies). In short-term interventional studies, Z-drugs were similarly or better efficacious in improving both sleep and daytime parameters than placebo or other pharmacological treatments, while showing good results on measures of safety. However, in longer-term observational studies, Z-drugs significantly increased the risk for falls and fractures in comparison to no treatment or melatonin agonists. Conclusions Analyzing the evidence from short-term interventional studies, Z-drugs appear effective and safe for treatment of insomnia in older adults, but they may have unfavorable side effects when used for longer periods of time. We, therefore, recommend discontinuing Z-drugs, principally because of the high risk for falls and fractures. Nonetheless, quality and quantity of evidence are low. Due to the scarcity of data, especially concerning drug dependence after longer periods of treatment and due to the significantly increased risk for falls and fractures, further studies are needed to evaluate the benefit-risk profile of Z-drugs use in older patients, particularly for long-term use.

Background Although prehospital point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is gaining in importance, its rapid interpretation remains challenging in prehospital emergency situations. The technical development of remote real-time supervision potentially offers the possibility to support emergency medicine providers during prehospital emergency ultrasound. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of live data transmission and supervision of prehospital POCUS in an urban environment and so to improve patients’ safety. Methods Emergency doctors with moderate ultrasound experience performed prehospital POCUS in emergency cases (n = 24) such as trauma, acute dyspnea or cardiac shock using the portable ultrasound device Lumify™. The ultrasound examination was remotely transmitted to an emergency ultrasound expert in the clinic for real-time supervision via a secure video and audio connection. Technical feasibility as well as quality of communication and live stream were analysed. Results Prehospital POCUS with remote real-time supervision was successfully performed in 17 patients (71%). In 3 cases, the expert was not available on time and in 1 case remote data transmission was not possible due to connection problems. In 3 cases tele-supervision was restricted to video only and no verbal communication was possible via the device itself due to power saving mode of the tablet. Conclusion Remote real-time supervision of prehospital POCUS in an urban environment is feasible most of the time with excellent image and communication quality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials Number NCT04612816.

Background: Although prehospital point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is gaining in importance, its rapid interpretation remains challenging in prehospital emergency situations. The technical development of remote real-time supervision potentially offers the possibility to support emergency medicine providers during prehospital emergency ultrasound. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of live data transmission and supervision of prehospital POCUS in an urban environment.Methods: Emergency doctors with moderate ultrasound experience performed prehospital POCUS in emergency cases (n=24) such as trauma, acute dyspnea or cardiac shock using the portable ultrasound device LumifyTM. The ultrasound examination was remotely transmitted to an emergency ultrasound expert in the clinic for real-time supervision via a secure video and audio connection. Technical feasibility as well as quality of communication and live stream were analysed.Results: Prehospital POCUS with remote real-time supervision was successfully performed in 17 patients (71%). In 3 cases, the expert was not available on time and in 1 case remote data transmission was not possible due to connection problems. In 3 cases tele-supervision was restricted to video only due to power saving mode of the tablet.Conclusion: Remote real-time supervision of prehospital POCUS is feasible most of the time with excellent image and communication quality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials Number NCT04612816

BACKGROUND: Viscoelastically guided coagulation factor concentrate-based algorithms for the treatment of trauma-induced coagulopathy include the administration of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). However, the exact role of PCC preparations in this context is a matter of debate. Particularly, the ideal diagnostic trigger for their administration and potential differences between heparin-containing and heparin-free preparations remain unclear. We investigated the hypothesis that 2 different PCCs might have distinct influences on in vitro blood coagulation. METHODS: We conducted a direct comparison of 2 commercially available PCC preparations (the heparin-containing Beriplex P/N and the heparin-free Cofact) in an in vitro hemodilution model. Sole fibrinogen substitution served as the control group. To characterize the hemostatic changes, we utilized conventional coagulation tests, a thrombin generation assay (TGA), and 2 different viscoelastic hemostatic assays (VHAs; ROTEM delta and ClotPro). RESULTS: Irrespective of the diagnostic assay used, no significant differences between the 2 PCC groups were observed. Fibrinogen levels remained stable from the baseline throughout every dilution level. The control group already showed an increased endogenous thrombin potential (ETP; nM·L−1·min−1) at all dilution levels compared to baseline (baseline, 2829.4 (432.8); 40% dilution, 4211.7 (391.6); 60% dilution, 4290.9 (300.8); 80% dilution, 3861.4 (303.5); all P < .001). Spiking with both PCC preparations led to a further-pronounced thrombin elevation in comparison to the control group (ETP at 40% dilution, PCC1: 4913.3 [370.2], PCC2: 4988.1 [265.7]; 60% dilution, PCC1: 5174.5 [234.7], PCC2: 5390.4 [334.9]; 80% dilution, PCC1: 5253.8 [357.9], PCC2: 5392.6 [313.4]; all P < .001). Conventional coagulation tests did not mirror the TGA results. Despite increased thrombin generation, prothrombin time was significantly prolonged at all dilution levels for the control group, and both PCC groups exhibited significant prolongations at the 60% and 80% dilution levels (all P < .001) compared to baseline. Similarly, VHA did not depict the thrombin elevation. Furthermore, descriptive analyses revealed relevant differences between the 2 VHA devices, particularly at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCC preparations (ie, irrespective of heparin content) induced significant elevation of thrombin generation, which was not depicted by conventional coagulation tests or VHA. Our in vitro results suggest that diagnostic assays routinely used to guide PCC administration might not adequately reflect thrombin generation in bleeding patients.