Dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19 has been shown to decrease mortality and morbidity. The effects of higher doses of corticosteroid, that would further increase anti-inflammatory effects, are uncertain. The objective of our study was to assess the effect of 20 mg dexamethasone vs. 6 mg dexamethasone intravenously in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19. In a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial conducted in nine hospitals in the Czech Republic, we randomized adult patients with ARDS and COVID-19 requiring high-flow oxygen, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation to receive either intravenous high-dose dexamethasone (20 mg/day on days 1–5, 10 mg/day on days 6–10) or standard-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/d, days 1–10). The primary outcome was 28-day ventilator-free days. The five secondary outcomes were 60-day mortality, C-reactive protein dynamics, 14-day WHO (World Health Organization) Clinical Progression Scale score, adverse events and 90-day Barthel index. The long-term outcomes were 180- and 360-day mortality and the Barthel index. The planned sample size was 300, with interim analysis after enrollment of 150 patients. The trial was stopped due to a lack of recruitment, and the follow-up was completed in February 2023. Among 234 randomized patients of 300 planned patients, the primary outcome was available for 224 patients (110 high-dose and 114 standard-dose dexamethasone; median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 59.0 [48.5–66.0] years; 130 [58.0 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04663555?term=NCT04663555 rank=1 and EudraCT: 2020–005887-70.

BACKGROUND:The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. METHODS:We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS:We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.

Monitoring sleep quality and delirium are essential in providing modern intensive care. They present both equipment and personnel challenges. Not only because certain monitoring methods, such as polysomnography, affect monitored sleep themselves. Although new alternatives exist, polysomnography remains the gold standard in diagnosing and researching sleep disorders for the validity of the data obtained. Without monitoring and screening methods, delirium and sleep disorders cannot be reliably diagnosed in intensive care. Without a clearly established diagnosis, the outcomes of delirium and reduced sleep quality cannot be investigated. This article summarizes various options for monitoring both sleep and delirium, their advantages and limitations in the critical care setting.

Beta-lactam antibiotics remain one of the most preferred groups of antibiotics in critical care due to their excellent safety profiles and their activity against a wide spectrum of pathogens. The cornerstone of appropriate therapy with beta-lactams is to achieve an adequate plasmatic concentration of a given antibiotic, which is derived primarily from the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the specific pathogen. In a critically ill patient, the plasmatic levels of drugs could be affected by many significant changes in the patient's physiology, such as hypoalbuminemia, endothelial dysfunction with the leakage of intravascular fluid into interstitial space and acute kidney injury. Predicting antibiotic concentration from models based on non-critically ill populations may be misleading. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been shown to be effective in achieving adequate concentrations of many drugs, including beta-lactam antibiotics. Reliable methods, such as high-performance liquid chromatography, provide the accurate testing of a wide range of beta-lactam antibiotics. Long turnaround times remain the main drawback limiting their widespread use, although progress has been made recently in the implementation of different novel methods of antibiotic testing. However, whether the TDM approach can effectively improve clinically relevant patient outcomes must be proved in future clinical trials.

Poor quality of sleep and delirium are frequent complications of intensive care. The incidence of both complications is high, and evidence-based medicine has significantly demonstrated serious consequences in both cases. More data are available on delirium. While there is significant room for further research on sleep quality impairment, there are also technical limitations of monitoring and diagnosis. This article summarises known data on the epidemiology and risk factors of decreased quality of sleep and delirium in the intensive care setting.

The article summarizes up-to-date knowledge about effective diagnosis and treatment of anaphylactic reaction. It covers management of the acute anaphylactic reaction within the scope of emergency medicine, with special focus on the usage of intramuscularly injected adrenaline. Topics such as testing for allergies or the specific patophysiology of the anaphylaxis are not emphasized. The article is based on up-to-date guidelines and additional scientific evidence. Knowledge about the etiology and the risk factors is essential when diagnosing anaphylaxis. The diagnosis itself is based on the case circumstances, patients medical history and a physicians ability to assess the diverse signs of anaphylaxis. The ability to quickly diagnose, treat and immediately apply epinephrine is essential to halt the reaction in its beginning. A severe case of anaphylaxis can cause multiple serious organ dysfunctions resulting in refractory anaphylaxis and shock requiring organ support and specific medical measures. After the initial treatment, sequential procedures must be undertaken to minimalize the risk of a recurrent anaphylactic episode.

AbstractBackgroundProviding palliative care at the end of life (EOL) in intensive care units (ICUs) seems to be modified during the COVID-19 pandemic with potential burden of moral distress to health care providers (HCPs). We seek to assess the practice of EOL care during the COVID-19 pandemic in ICUs in the Czech Republic focusing on the level of moral distress and its possible modifiable factors.MethodsBetween 16 June 2021 and 16 September 2021, a national, cross-sectional study in intensive care units (ICUs) in Czech Republic was performed. All physicians and nurses working in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study. For questionnaire development ACADEMY and CHERRIES guide and checklist were used. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyse possible modifiable factors of moral distress.ResultsIn total, 313 HCPs (14.5% out of all HCPs who opened the questionnaire) fully completed the survey. Results showed that 51.8% (n = 162) of respondents were exposed to moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. 63.1% (n = 113) of nurses and 71.6% of (n = 96) physicians had experience with the perception of inappropriate care. If inappropriate care was perceived, a higher chance for the occurrence of moral distress for HCPs (OR, 1.854; CI, 1.057–3.252;p = 0.0312) was found. When patients died with dignity, the chance for moral distress was lower (OR, 0.235; CI, 0.128–0.430;p < 0.001). The three most often reported differences in palliative care practice during pandemic were health system congestion, personnel factors, and characteristics of COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsHCPs working at ICUs experienced significant moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic. The major sources were perceiving inappropriate care and dying of patients without dignity. Improvement of the decision-making process and communication at the end of life could lead to a better ethical and safety climate.Trial registration:NCT04910243.Graphical abstract

Study goal: Palliative care is an essential part of a complex approach to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to describe palliative care practice in ICU in the Czech Republic. Study type: a cross-sectional, questionnaire study Material and methods: The inclusion criteria for study participation were nurses or physicians taking care of patients in the ICU for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The participants could participate by filling out the electronic survey with 40 questions. The questionnaire was evaluated by descriptive statistical analysis. Results: 313 questionnaires were analyzed. Participants reported up to 15 different terms for end-of-life care, the most often being palliative care (75.1%, n=235). The supportive care, especially sedatives, was most frequently adjusted according to the patient's needs. On the other hand, as a standard approach, the parenteral (35.8%, n=112) and enteral (17.3%, n=54) nutrition were most often withdrawn. Regarding organ support, renal replacement therapy (69.7%, n=218) and vasopressors (60.4%, n=189) were often withdrawn. The most rarely withdrawn organ support was artificial ventilation (24.6%, n=77), endotracheal intubation (11.5%,n=36), and tracheostomy cannula (2.9%, n=9). The majority of respondents would appreciate further education in palliative care. Conclusion: Palliative care is an essential theme not only in the COVID-19 pandemic. The palliative care terminology and practice used in the Czech Republic are heterogeneous. There is a space for further research and education in palliative care.

Study objective: Administration of systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has been recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) according to the RECOVERY trial results. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding the evidence supporting the dose, timing, route of administration and type of corticosteroid. This survey aimed to describe the current clinical practice of administration of systemic corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 within Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Czech Republic. Study design: cross-sectional survey Material and methods: Electronic survey containing 15 questions was sent to the members of Czech Society of Anaesthesiol-ogy, Resuscitation and Intensive Care, Czech Society of Intensive care and Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society members. The results were analysed by descriptive statistic methods. Results: The survey fulfilled 233 respondents and 231 answers were eligible for analysis. The most prevalent group was attending physician with completed training in anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine (AIM) (32 %, n = 74). The most prevalent indication for initiation of corticosteroid treatment was oxygen therapy (face mask or nasal cannula) (59,3 %, n = 137) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) (21,6 %, n = 50). The most preferred corticosteroid was dexamethasone (75,8 %, n = 175) at dose of 8 mg intravenously (i. v.) (48,6 %, n = 85), or dose of 6 mg i. v. (32,0 %, n = 56) followed by methylprednis-olone (25,5 %, n= 59) at dose of 80 mg i. v. (35,6 %, n = 21), and 40 mg i. v. (13,6 %, n = 8), respectively. The preferred duration of therapy was 10 days (dexamethasone 60,6 %, n = 106, methylprednisolone 20,3 %, n = 12). Conclusion: Administration of corticosteroid was dominantly initiated in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen. The corticosteroid of first choice was intravenous dexamethasone at dose of 8 mg and 6 mg for 10 days, respectively.

Background Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people worldwide. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in need of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone 6 mg per day is currently recommended. However, the dose of 6 mg of dexamethasone is currently being reappraised and may miss important therapeutic potential or may prevent potential deleterious effects of higher doses of corticosteroids. Methods REMED is a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing the superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg (dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1–5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg on days 6–10) vs 6 mg administered once daily intravenously for 10 days in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. Three hundred participants will be enrolled and followed up for 360 days after randomization. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. The following stratification factors will be applied: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRP levels and trial centre. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation. The secondary endpoints are mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; dynamics of the inflammatory marker, change in WHO Clinical Progression Scale at day 14; and adverse events related to corticosteroids and independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by the Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. The study will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. Discussion We aim to compare two different doses of dexamethasone in patients with moderate to severe ARDS undergoing mechanical ventilation regarding efficacy and safety. Trial registration EudraCT No. 2020-005887-70. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663555. Registered on December 11, 2020

Septic shock is a major cause of mortality in ICU patients, its pathophysiology is complex and not properly understood. Oxidative stress seems to be one of the most important mechanisms of shock progression to multiple organ failure. In the present pilot study, we have analysed eight oxidative-stress-related biomarkers in seven consecutive time points (i.e., the first seven days) in 21 septic shock patients admitted to the ICU. Our objective was to describe the kinetics of four biomarkers related to pro-oxidative processes (nitrite/nitrate, malondialdehyde, 8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine, soluble endoglin) compared to four biomarkers of antioxidant processes (the ferric reducing ability of plasma, superoxide dismutase, asymmetric dimethylarginine, mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin) and four inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL-6, IL-10 and neopterin). Furthermore, we analysed each biomarker’s ability to predict mortality at the time of admission and 12 h after admission. Although a small number of study subjects were recruited, we have identified four promising molecules for further investigation: soluble endoglin, superoxide dismutase, asymmetric dimethylarginine and neopterin.

Additional file 2 Appendix 2. Complete analysis.

Cryptococcal superinfection is a rare but potentially fatal complication, especially if its detection and subsequent treatment are delayed. Histopathological findings of pulmonary parenchyma from a deceased patient with these complications were acquired. Quite interestingly, only a minimal inflammatory reaction could be seen in an individual with no previously known immune suppression, indicating a disturbance of the immune system. This finding was well in concordance with the described changes in cellular immunity in COVID-19. We report the case of a 60 year old male with critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complicated by cryptococcal pneumonia and multiorgan failure. Both X-ray and CT scans revealed lung infiltrates corresponding with COVID-19 infection early after the onset of symptoms. Despite receiving standard treatment, the patient progressed into multiple organ failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and haemodialysis. Cryptococcus neoformans was detected by subsequent BAL, and specific antifungal treatment was instituted. His clinical status deteriorated despite all treatment, and he died of refractory circulatory failure after 21 days from hospital admission. Histopathological findings confirmed severe diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) caused by COVID-19 and cryptococcal pneumonia. Timely diagnosis of cryptococcal superinfection may be challenging; therefore, PCR panels detecting even uncommon pathogens should be implemented while taking care of critical COVID-19 patients.

Introduction: Cardiogenic shock is a frequent complication of acute myocardial infarction. Similar to ischemia/reperfusion injury, excessive production of reactive oxygen species can be expected in those who experience cardiogenic shock. The aims of this study were to describe the extent and time course of oxidative stress and evaluate the prognostic value of oxidative stress markers in patients who experienced ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods: Plasma/serum levels of selected biomarkers of oxidative stress (oxidised guanine species (OGS), malondialdehyde, and glutathione peroxidase 3) and markers, which simultaneously reflect severe cellular damage (ferric ion reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), Cu/Zn-superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione) were measured seven times per week in a prospective cohort of 82 patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Results: We found elevated OGS levels in patients who died during three months, which persisted significantly increased the next 12 h compared to surviving patients. A similar time course pattern also exhibited concentrations of FRAP and SOD. The other markers did not change significantly and did not show differences between surviving and non-surviving patients during the monitored period. In addition, a strong relationship between OGS, FRAP, and SOD levels (on admission and 12 h after admission) and 3-month mortality was found. Conclusion: Levels of OGS, FRAP, and SOD within 12 h after hospital admission were revealed as early predictors of the adverse development of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Objectives The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that administration of dexamethasone 20 mg is superior to a 6 mg dose in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. The secondary objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 20 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg. The exploratory objective of this study is to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. Trial design REMED is a prospective, phase II, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg vs 6 mg. The trial aims to be pragmatic, i.e. designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in conditions that are close to real-life routine clinical practice. Participants The study is multi-centre and will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. Inclusion criteria Subjects will be eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following criteria: 1. Adult (≥18 years of age) at time of enrolment; 2. Present COVID-19 (infection confirmed by RT-PCR or antigen testing); 3. Intubation/mechanical ventilation or ongoing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy; 4. Moderate or severe ARDS according to Berlin criteria: • Moderate – PaO 2 /FiO 2 100–200 mmHg; • Severe – PaO 2 /FiO 2 < 100 mmHg; 5. Admission to ICU in the last 24 hours. Exclusion criteria Subjects will not be eligible for the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Known allergy/hypersensitivity to dexamethasone or excipients of the investigational medicinal product (e.g. parabens, benzyl alcohol); 2. Fulfilled criteria for ARDS for ≥14 days at enrolment; 3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding; 4. Unwillingness to comply with contraception measurements from enrolment until at least 1 week after the last dose of dexamethasone (sexual abstinence is considered an adequate contraception method); 5. End-of-life decision or patient is expected to die within next 24 hours; 6. Decision not to intubate or ceilings of care in place; 7. Immunosuppression and/or immunosuppressive drugs in medical history: a) Systemic immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy in the past 30 days; b) Systemic corticosteroid use before hospitalization; c) Any dose of dexamethasone during the present hospital stay for COVID-19 for ≥5 days before enrolment; d) Systemic corticosteroids during present hospital stay for conditions other than COVID-19 (e.g. septic shock); 8. Current haematological or generalized solid malignancy; 9. Any contraindication for corticosteroid administration, e.g. • intractable hyperglycaemia; • active gastrointestinal bleeding; • adrenal gland disorders; • presence of superinfection diagnosed with locally established clinical and laboratory criteria without adequate antimicrobial treatment; 10. Cardiac arrest before ICU admission; 11. Participation in another interventional trial in the last 30 days. Intervention and comparator Dexamethasone solution for injection/infusion is the investigational medicinal product as well as the comparator. The trial will assess two doses, 20 mg (investigational) vs 6 mg (comparator). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously once daily on day 1–5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously once daily on day 6–10. Patients in the control group will receive dexamethasone 6 mg day 1–10. All authorized medicinal products containing dexamethasone in the form of solution for i.v. injection/infusion can be used. Main outcomes Primary endpoint: Number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints a) Mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; b) Dynamics of inflammatory marker (C-Reactive Protein, CRP) change from Day 1 to Day 14; c) WHO Clinical Progression Scale at Day 14; d) Adverse events related to corticosteroids (new infections, new thrombotic complications) until Day 28 or hospital discharge; e) Independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days through telephone structured interviews using the Barthel Index. Randomisation Randomisation will be carried out within the electronic case report form (eCRF) by the stratified permuted block randomisation method. Allocation sequences will be prepared by a statistician independent of the study team. Allocation to the treatment arm of an individual patient will not be available to the investigators before completion of the whole randomisation process. The following stratification factors will be applied: • Age <65 and ≥ 65; • Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) <3 and ≥3; • CRP <150 mg/L and ≥150 mg/L • Trial centre. Patients will be randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. Randomisation through the eCRF will be available 24 hours every day. Blinding (masking) This is an open-label trial in which the participants and the study staff will be aware of the allocated intervention. Blinded pre-planned statistical analysis will be performed. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The sample size is calculated to detect the difference of 3 VFDs at 28 days (primary efficacy endpoint) between the two treatment arms with a two-sided type I error of 0.05 and power of 80%. Based on data from a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in COVID-19 ARDS patients in Brazil and a multi-centre observational study from French and Belgian ICUs regarding moderate to severe ARDS related to COVID-19, investigators assumed a standard deviation of VFD at 28 days as 9. Using these assumptions, a total of 142 patients per treatment arm would be needed. After adjustment for a drop-out rate, 150 per treatment arm (300 patients per study) will be enrolled. Trial Status This is protocol version 1.1, 15.01.2021. The trial is due to start on 2 February 2021 and recruitment is expected to be completed by December 2021. Trial registration The study protocol was registered on EudraCT No.:2020-005887-70, and on December 11, 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov (Title: Effect of Two Different Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients With ARDS and COVID-19 (REMED)) Identifier: NCT04663555 with a last update posted on February 1, 2021. Full protocol The full protocol (version 1.1) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the standard formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Lidský koronavirus SARS‑CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2) představuje, kvůli schopnosti způsobovat postiženi plic u nezanedbatelneho procenta postižených, zasadni zdravotnický a potažmo spolecenský problem. Od propuknuti pandemie koncem roku 2019 byla testovana řada leciv ovlivňujicich průběh onemocněni. Až na několik připadů vsak nebyl jejich pozitivni ucinek prokazan, navic v dostatecně kvalitnich studiich. Jednou z takových výjimek jsou kortikoidy aplikovane u nemocných s těžsim stupněm oxygenacni poruchy. Kortikoidy maji potencial přiznivě ovlivňovat plicni poskozeni a reparaci plicnich funkci diky modulaci zanětlive odpovědi zprostředkovane přes glukokortikoidni receptory. Jejich ucinek byl potvrzen v několika velkých randomizovaných studiich a v soucasnosti jsou brany jako nedilna soucast komplexni pece o pacienty s pneumonii vyvolanou virem SARS‑CoV-2, kteři vyžaduji oxygenacni podporu ci umělou plicni ventilaci. Existuje vsak znacna nejistota ohledně optimalni davky kortikoidů napřic takto sirokým spektrem pacientů. Data z dřivějsich studii u pacientů se syndromem akutni respiracni tisně (ARDS) nekoronavirove etiologie svědci spise pro vyssi davky kortikoidů, než byly užity v pracich u pacientů s nemoci vyvolanou SARS‑CoV-2 (covid-19, coronavirus disease 2019). Stejně tak neni jasne optimalni nacasovani a volba konkretniho připravku. Na tyto otazky by mohla v dohledne budoucnosti pomoci odpovědět pravě probihajici klinicka hodnoceni.

Objective: Successful completion of a simulation course on critical states has recently become required in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Board Certification process. Firstly, the objectives of this study were to compare data from self-assessment questionnaires answered by the participants before and after completing high-fidelity simulations and, secondly, to evaluate the perception of these simulations by young trainees and whether they will have an effect on their interest in continuing such a training. Design of the study: Observational; Survey research. Setting of the study: Department of Anesthesiology at University Hospital. Materials and methods: The target group were trainees enrolled in the residency training program at our department. Each of them completed two high-fidelity simulation sessions. The clinical scenarios focused on emergencies in anesthesiology, i.e. difficult airway management and complications of regional anaesthesia. The simulations were held in an actual operat ing theatre with complete equipment and participating nurse anaesthetists at all times. Overall performance and skills of each trainee and the nurse were assessed, including their level of cooperation. A structured debriefing providing feedback to the participants was held following each simulation. For study purposes, each trainee answered two questionnaires (one preceding the first simulation and the other following the second). The questions aimed at self-assessment and evaluation of the course as such. Methods of descriptive statistics processed the results. Results: All of 14 residents enrolled in postgraduate training at our institution had participated in the study. Each of them expressed interest in increasing the frequency of training sessions following the simulations; 13 (93 %) felt motivated to gain new theoretical knowledge. All participants were interested in completing additional simulations. Conclusion: Despite the relatively small study population, the survey demonstrated this education concept very well accept ed. Simulations instigate trainees to deepen their theoretical knowledge and practical skills. From this perspective, medical simulations do have their place in postgraduate training, and their implementation could have a share in increasing erudition in our field.