Unconventional multidisciplinary team strategy for tracheostomy in COVID-19

Effectiveness of interprofessional tracheostomy teams: A systematic review

AIM(S)

To systematically locate, evaluate and synthesize evidence regarding effectiveness of interprofessional tracheostomy teams in increasing speaking valve use and decreasing time to speech and decannulation, adverse events, lengths of stay (intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and mortality. In addition, to evaluate facilitators and barriers to implementing an interprofessional tracheostomy team in hospital settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model's guidance.

METHODS

Our clinical question: Do interprofessional tracheostomy teams increase speaking valve use and decrease time to speech and decannulation, adverse events, lengths of stay and mortality? Primary studies involving adult patients with a tracheostomy were included. Eligible studies were systematically reviewed by two reviewers and verified by another two reviewers.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria; primarily pre-post intervention cohort studies. Percent increase in speaking valve use ranged 14%-275%; percent reduction in median days to speech ranged 33%-73% and median days to decannulation ranged 26%-32%; percent reduction in rate of adverse events ranged 32%-88%; percent reduction in median hospital length of stay days ranged 18-40 days; no significant change in overall ICU length of stay and mortality rates. Facilitators include team education, coverage, rounds, standardization, communication, lead personnel and automation, patient tracking; barrier is financial.

CONCLUSION

Patients with tracheostomy who received care from a dedicated interprofessional team showed improvements in several clinical outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE

Additional high-quality evidence from rigorous, well-controlled and adequately powered studies are necessary, as are implementation strategies to promote broader adoption of interprofessional tracheostomy team strategies. Interprofessional tracheostomy teams are associated with improved safety and quality of care.

IMPACT

Evidence from review provides rationale for broader implementation of interprofessional tracheostomy teams.

REPORTING METHOD

PRISMA and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM).

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

Multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Team Characteristics, Airway Securement Success, and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Objective:

To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary airway team was associated with improvement in (1) rate of successful airway securement at first attempt; (2) time to secure airway; and (3) overall complication rate in patients with a difficult airway, as compared with usual care.

Data Sources:

Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases.

Review Methods:

Systematic review of literature on inpatient multidisciplinary team management of difficult airways, including all studies performed in inpatient settings, excluding studies of ventilator weaning, flight/military medicine, EXIT procedures, and simulation or educational studies. DistillerSR was used for article screening and risk of a bias assessment to evaluate article quality. Data was extracted on study design, airway team composition, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes including airway securement, complications, and mortality.

Results:

From 5323 studies screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria with 4675 patients. Study designs included 12 quality improvement projects, 6 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Four studies evaluated effect of multidisciplinary difficult airway teams on airway securement; all reported higher first attempt success rate with team approach. Three studies reported time to secure the difficult airways, all reporting swifter airway securement with team approach. The most common difficult airway complications were hypoxia, esophageal intubation, hemodynamic instability, and aspiration. Team composition varied, including otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory care practitioners.

Conclusion:

Multidisciplinary difficult airway teams are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to unstructured emergency airway management; however, studies have significant heterogeneity in team composition, algorithms for airway securement, and outcomes reported. Further evidence is necessary to define the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and best practices relating to implementing difficult airway teams in inpatient settings.

Performance and impact of an airway management team launched during the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

To determine the performance and impact of an airway management team (AMT) assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort review of all adult patients who had received airway management services from the AMT (n = 269) and administered a survey questionnaire targeting physicians who had the option to activate the AMT (n = 77). The retrospective review determined the performance of the AMT, and the physicians’ survey evaluated the impact of the AMT. The study was conducted at a large Canadian health centre (1,133 beds) from 28 March to 30 June 2020. We included patients in the cohort review who were ≥18 yr of age, whose chart showed that the AMT was activated, and whose airway was managed outside the operating room. We reviewed both electronic medical records and paper chart documentation. Outcomes included intubation success, number of intubation attempts, intubation time, team response time, patient contact time, intubation complications, and breaches of personal protective equipment (PPE) protocol. The physicians’ survey evaluated the relevance, performance, reasonableness, and clinical utility of the AMT.

Results

The AMT intubated 231 patients. Charts showed that 91% of intubations were accomplished on first attempt. The mean (standard deviation) intubation time was 2.1 (0.2) min. The complication rate was minimal. The incidence of breaching PPE protocol items was less than 6%. No AMT members reported COVID-19 symptoms. The response rate for the physician’s survey was 36%. The consensus among the participants was that the AMT had considerable clinical utility during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion

An AMT assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic showed high competency and effectiveness, and had favourable impact on the main responsible physicians who activated the team.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire COVID-19 Tracheostomy cohort was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of complications, mortality, time to decannulation and ventilatory weaning. Outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous and outcomes relative to tracheostomy timing were also analysed. Studies reporting outcome data on patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Outcome data were analysed using a random-effects model. From 1016 unique studies, 39 articles reporting outcomes for a total of 3929 patients were included for meta-analysis. Weighted mean follow-up time was 42.03±26 days post-tracheostomy. Meta-analysis showed that 61.2% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation [95%CI 52.6%-69.5%], 44.2% of patients were decannulated [95%CI 33.96%-54.67%], and cumulative mortality was found to be 19.23% [95%CI 15.2%-23.6%] across the entire tracheostomy cohort. The cumulative incidence of complications was 14.24% [95%CI 9.6%-19.6%], with bleeding accounting for 52% of all complications. No difference was found in incidence of mortality (RR1.96; p=0.34), decannulation (RR1.35, p=0.27), complications (RR0.75, p=0.09) and time to decannulation (SMD 0.46, p=0.68) between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. Moreover, no difference was found in mortality (RR1.57, p=0.43) between early and late tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy did not predict time to decannulation. Ten confirmed nosocomial staff infections were reported from 1398 tracheostomies. This study provides an overview of outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, and contributes to our understanding of tracheostomy decisions in this patient cohort.

Tracheostomy outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tracheostomy is a standard surgical procedure that is used in critically ill patients who require sustained mechanical ventilation. In this article, we review the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who underwent tracheostomy. We searched for relevant articles on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, up to April 20, 2021. This meta- analysis examines ventilation liberation, decannulation, and hospital mortality rates in COVID-19 patients who have undergone tracheostomy. Two investigators evaluated the articles, and the differences of opinion were settled by consensus with a third author. A total of 4366 patients were included in 47 related articles for this meta-analysis. After data pooling, the proportions of ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were found to be 48% (95% CI: 31-64), 42% (95% CI: 17-69) and 18% (95% CI: 9-28) respectively. The Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index values for ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were 4.28, 1.32 and 0.69. No transmission of the disease attributable to participating in tracheostomy procedures was reported in most of the included articles.