Elective tracheostomy during COVID-19 outbreak: to whom, when, how? Early experience from Venice, Italy

Timing dilemma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy with varied timing, including 7, 10 and 14 days

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the effects of tracheostomy timing on COVID-19 outcomes by comparing mortality rates at different time points (7, 10 and 14 days).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from 31 August 2023 to 6 September 2023.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcome was short-term mortality, defined as intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality and 28-day or 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital days.

RESULTS

Among 3465 patients from 12 studies, the 10-day subgroup analysis revealed higher mortality for earlier tracheostomy than for later tracheostomy (49.7% vs 32.6%, OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.37-2.65). No significant differences were observed at 7- and 14-day marks. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation (mean difference=-7.35 days, 95% CI -11.63 to -0.38) and ICU stays (mean difference=-11.24 days, 95% CI -18.50 to -3.97) compared with later tracheostomy. Regarding hospital stay, the later tracheostomy group exhibited a trend towards longer-term inpatients, with no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in short-term mortality was observed between patients undergoing tracheostomy at 7 and 14 days; however, at 10 days, later tracheostomy resulted in a lower mortality rate. Accordingly, subtle timing differences may impact short-term results in COVID-19 patients. Considering that the later tracheostomy group had longer mechanical ventilation and ICU stays, additional research is required to determine an optimal timing that reduces mortality cost-effectively.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Tracheostomized Patients With and Without COVID-19

Outcomes of tracheostomized patients with COVID-19 are seldomly investigated with conflicting evidence from the existing literature.

OBJECTIVES

To create a study evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on tracheostomized patients by comparing clinical outcomes and weaning parameters in COVID-19 positive and negative cohorts.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective observational cohort study of 604 tracheostomized patients hospitalized in 16 ICUs in New York City between March 9, 2020, and September 8, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patients were stratified into two cohorts: 398 COVID-19 negative (COVID-ve) and 206 COVID-19 positive (COVID+ve) patients. Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and weaning parameters (first pressure support [PS], tracheostomy collar [TC], speech valve placement, and decannulation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

COVID+ve had fewer comorbidities including coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, malignancy, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and HIV (p < 0.05). Higher Fio2 (53% vs 44%), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (7.15 vs 5.69), Pco2 (45.8 vs 38.2), and lower pH (7.41 vs 7.43) were observed at the time of tracheostomy in COVID+ve (p < 0.005). There was no statistical difference in post-tracheostomy complication rates. Longer time from intubation to tracheostomy (15.90 vs 13.60 d; p = 0.002), tracheostomy to first PS (2.87 vs 1.80 d; p = 0.005), and TC placement (11.07 vs 4.46 d; p < 0.001) were seen in COVID+ve. However, similar time to speech valve placement, decannulation, and significantly lower 1-year mortality (23.3% vs 36.7%; p = 0.001) with higher number of discharges to long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) (23.8% vs 13.6%; p = 0.015) were seen in COVID+ve.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with COVID-19 required higher Fio2 and PEEP ventilatory support at the time of tracheostomy, with no observed change in complication rates. Despite longer initial weaning period with PS or TC, similar time to speech valve placement or decannulation with significantly lower mortality and higher LTACH discharges suggest favorable outcome in COVID-19 positive patients. Higher ventilatory support requirements and prolonged weaning should not be a deterrent to pursuing a tracheostomy.

Indications and Recommendations for Tracheostomy in Trauma Population With COVID-19 Infection: A Review of the Literature

This review explores the current body of evidence pertaining to tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 seropositive patients and summarizes the research by tracheostomy indications, timing, and procedure. Literature review was performed in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA guidelines and includes 12 papers discussing protocols for adult patients seropositive for COVID-19. The studies demonstrated high mortality rates after tracheostomy, especially in geriatric patients, and suggested a multifactorial determination of whether to perform a tracheostomy. There was inconclusive data regarding wait time between testing seropositive, tracheostomy, and weaning off of ventilation. COVID-19 generally reaches highest infectivity between days 9 and 10; furthermore, high early mortality rates seen in COVID-19 may confound mortality implicated by tracheostomy placement. Due to the aerosol-generating nature of tracheostomy placement, management and maintenance, techniques, equipment, and personnel should be carefully considered and altered for COVID-19 patients. With surgical tracheostomy, literature suggested decreased usage of electrocautery; with percutaneous tracheostomy, single-use bronchoscope should be used. The nonemergent exchange of tracheostomy should be done only after the patient tested negative for COVID-19. Placement of tracheostomy should only be considered in COVID-19 patients who are no longer transmissible, with rigorous attention to safety precautions. Understanding procedures for airway maintenance in a respiratory disease like COVID-19 is imperative, especially due to current shortages in ventilators and PPE. However, because of a lack of available data and its likelihood of change as more data emerges, we lack complete guidelines for tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 seropositive patients, and those existing will likely evolve with the disease.

Utility of Early Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Covid-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

COVID 19 has proven itself to be an agent of cataclysm and caused an uproar worldwide due to consistent strain on the finite resources available to tackle the situation. With the rapidly mutating viral nature, resultant disease is becoming more severe over time, causing significant numbers of critical cases needing invasive ventilatory support. Available literature dictates that tracheostomy might reduce the stress over healthcare infrastructure. Our systematic review is aimed towards understanding the influence of tracheostomy timing, over the course of the illness, by analyzing the relevant literature, thus aiding in decision making while managing critical COVID 19 patients. With predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, PubMed data was explored using search terms like 'timing', 'tracheotomy'/'tracheostomy' and 'COVID'/'COVID-19'/'SARS CoV2' and 26 articles were finalised for formal review. 26 studies (3527 patients) were systematically reviewed. 60.3% and 39.5% patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy and open surgical tracheostomy respectively. We report 7.62%, 21.3%, 56% and 46.53% as approximate estimates, of complication rate, mortality rate, rate of mechanical ventilation weaning and rate of decannulation following tracheostomy in COVID 19 patients, respectively taking into account underestimation of the data. Provided that appropriate preventive measures and safety guidelines are strictly followed, moderately early tracheostomy (between 10 and 14 days of intubation) can prove quite efficacious in management of critical COVID 19 patients. Also, early tracheostomy was associated with early weaning and decannulation, thus reducing the enormous competition for intensive care unit beds.

Elective Tracheostomy During Covid-19 Pandemic- A Tertiary Care Centre Experience

Aims and Objectives

: The aim of our study was to present an experience of elective tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients at our institute.

Materials and methods

The present prospective study was conducted, after approval by Institutional Ethics Committee, in the Department of ENT, SMGS Hospital, GMC Jammu from May 2020 to March 2021 over 60 patients having need for prolonged mechanical ventilation and having tested positive for COVID-19 with nasopharyngeal swab on rtPCR assay testing. Detailed information regarding following aspects was gathered :Age, Gender, Comorbidities (Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease, Pulmonary disease, Malignancy), time of endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, time to wean sedation after tracheostomy, time to wean mechanical ventilation after tracheostomy, surgical complications, mortality, any health care worker in operating team getting infected by SARS-CoV-2. All 60 patients underwent Elective Open Tracheostomy Bed-side in the ICU section of our institute.

Results

The mean age of presentation was 55.9 ± 2.34 years, with male preponderance. The most common indication for tracheostomy was ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) (56.6%). Out of 60 patients, co-morbidities were present in 44 patients (73.3%). The mean time between endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy was 12.2 ± 4.9 days. The mean time to wean mechanical ventilation after tracheostomy was 10.4 ± 2.31 days. The mean time to wean sedation was 2.2 ± 0.83 days. There were no deaths during the procedure. Out of 60 patients, 5 patients (8.3%) died due to complications of COVID-19.

Conclusion

Our study provides important clinical data (such as timing of tracheostomy, pre-operative evaluation of patients, recommendations during procedure, outcomes of tracheostomy and postoperative care) on this threatening issue of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients and might be of immense help to various Otorhinolaryngologists who are dealing with the same situation.

Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Patients Following Percutaneous Versus Open Surgical Tracheostomy: An Analysis of Clinical and Prognostic Indicators

Background and objective Tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients can be performed in cases of prolonged intubation or in patients with a known difficult airway. Tracheostomy is usually performed by two main approaches: open surgery or percutaneous endoscopic insertion. However, few studies have compared these two techniques in severe COVID-19 patients. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of the two main methods of tracheostomy among patients with severe COVID-19 infection. We also aimed to investigate the impact of various lab data and medications on patient outcomes. Materials and methods We included all symptomatic severe COVID-19 patients in need of prolonged mechanical ventilation. We examined the patients' past medical history, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis, laboratory workups, and medication history. We calculated the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio as an index to evaluate the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Results During the study period, 72 patients with severe COVID-19 underwent tracheostomy tube insertion. The average age of participants was 58.93 ±15.27 years; 44 (61.1%) were male and 28 (38.9%) were female. Of note, 54 (75.0%) patients passed away and only 18 (25.0%) survived. Among the survivors, 13 (29.5%) were men and five (17.9%) were women. The study showed a significantly higher mortality rate (23, 92.0%) among patients who underwent open surgery compared to those who received percutaneous surgery (31, 65.9%) (p=0.01). Conclusion Based on our findings, percutaneous endoscopic tracheostomy seems to be the superior approach compared to open tracheostomy. Other predictive factors associated with patient outcomes included levels of HCO₃, FiO₂, PaCO₂, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio.

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and its effect on outcome: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The exponential rise in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases has resulted in an increased number of patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support and subsequent tracheostomy. With the limited availability of literature regarding the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy, we attempted to study the clinical characteristics and multiple parameters affecting the outcomes in these patients.

AIM

To determine all-cause mortality following tracheostomy and its association with various risk factors in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 73 adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between 1 April, 2020 and 30 September, 2021 who underwent tracheostomy as a result of acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The data collected included demographics (age, sex), comorbidities, type of oxygen support at admission, severity of COVID-19, complications, and other parameters such as admission to tracheostomy, intubation to tracheostomy, ICU stay, hospital stay, and outcome.

RESULTS

This study included 73 adult patients with an average age of 52 ± 16.67 years, of which 52% were men. The average time for admission to tracheostomy was 18.12 ± 12.98 days while intubation to tracheostomy was 11.97 ± 9 days. The mortality rate was 71.2% and 28.8% of patients were discharged alive. The mean duration of ICU and hospital stay was 25 ± 11 days and 28.21 ± 11.60 days, respectively. Greater age, severe COVID-19, mechanical ventilation, shock and acute kidney injury were associated with poor prognosis; however, early tracheostomy in intubated patients resulted in better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation have a poor prognosis but patients with early tracheostomy may benefit with no added risk. We recommend that the timing of tracheostomy be decided on a case-by-case basis and a well-designed randomised controlled trial should be performed to elucidate the potential benefit of early tracheostomy in such patients.

COVID-19 Transmission to Health Care Personnel During Tracheostomy Under a Multidisciplinary Safety Protocol

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomies are highly aerosolizing procedures yet are often indicated in patients with COVID-19 who require prolonged intubation. Robust investigations of the safety of tracheostomy protocols and provider adherence and evaluations are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate of COVID-19 infection of health care personnel involved in COVID-19 tracheostomies under a multidisciplinary safety protocol and to investigate health care personnel's attitudes and suggested areas for improvement concerning the protocol.

METHODS

All health care personnel involved in tracheostomies in COVID-19-positive patients from April 9 through July 11, 2020, were sent a 22-item electronic survey.

RESULTS

Among 107 health care personnel (80.5%) who responded to the survey, 5 reported a positive COVID-19 test result (n = 2) or symptoms of COVID-19 (n = 3) within 21 days of the tracheostomy. Respondents reported 100% adherence to use of adequate personal protective equipment. Most (91%) were familiar with the tracheostomy protocol and felt safe (92%) while performing tracheostomy. Suggested improvements included creating dedicated tracheostomy teams and increasing provider choices surrounding personal protective equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary engagement in the development and implementation of a COVID-19 tracheostomy protocol is associated with acceptable safety for all members of the care team.

Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications.

METHODS

Four databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7-18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7-25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0-35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1-45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2-1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4-1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2-27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7-27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42021272220.

Association of mortality and early tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective analysis

COVID-19 adds to the complexity of optimal timing for tracheostomy. Over the course of this pandemic, and expanded knowledge of the disease, many centers have changed their operating procedures and performed an early tracheostomy. We studied the data on early and delayed tracheostomy regarding patient outcome such as mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all tracheostomies at our institution in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from March 2020 to June 2021. Time from intubation to tracheostomy and mortality of early (≤ 10 days) vs. late (> 10 days) tracheostomy were the primary objectives of this study. We used mixed cox-regression models to calculate the effect of distinct variables on events. We studied 117 tracheostomies. Intubation to tracheostomy shortened significantly (Spearman’s correlation coefficient; rho = − 0.44, p ≤ 0.001) during the course of this pandemic. Early tracheostomy was associated with a significant increase in mortality in uni- and multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio 1.83, 95% CI 1.07–3.17, p = 0.029). The timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients has a potentially critical impact on mortality. The timing of tracheostomy has changed during this pandemic tending to be performed earlier. Future prospective research is necessary to substantiate these results.

Outcomes and survival of tracheostomised patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in a third level hospital

PURPOSE

Analyse the evolution and outcomes of COVID-19 tracheostomised patients. Clarify if this cohort presents an increased risk of haemorrhagic complications and verify the correlation between some risk factors with increased mortality.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre observational study of a prospective cohort of all COVID-19 patients admitted to our centre between March and April 2020. A control group was obtained from a historical cohort of patients who required tracheostomy due to prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 1768 patients were included: 67 tracheostomised non-COVID-19 patients (historic cohort), 1371 COVID-19 patients that did not require ICU admission, 266 non-tracheostomised COVID-19 patients and 64 tracheostomised COVID-19 patients. Comparing the obesity prevalence, 54.69% of the tracheostomised COVID-19 patients were obese and 10.53% of the non-tracheostomised COVID-19 patients (p < 0.001). The median of ICU admission days was lower (p < 0.001) in the non-tracheostomised cohort (12.5 days) compared with the COVID-19 tracheostomised cohort (34 days). The incidence of haemorrhagic complications was significantly higher in tracheostomised COVID-19 patients (20.31%) compared with tracheostomised non-COVID-19 patients (5.97%) and presented a higher percentage of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and smoking, significantly different from the historic cohort (p < 0.001). A Cox model showed that tracheostomy had no statistically significant effect on mortality in COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

Obesity and smoking may be risk factors for tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, tracheostomised COVID-19 patients present a higher risk of bleeding complications than those admitted for other reasons and an elevated LDH and INR on ICU admission may be associated with increased mortality.

Clinical Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Tracheostomy is increasingly performed when a prolonged course of IMV is anticipated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine clinical and resource utilization benefits of early versus late tracheostomy among COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase were used to identify relevant studies comparing outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing early and late tracheostomy from January 1, 2020, to December 1, 2021.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were selected, and 2222 critically ill COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January to December 2020 were included. Among the included patients, 34.5% and 65.5% underwent early and late tracheostomy, respectively. Among the included studies, 58.3% and 41.7% defined early tracheostomy using cutoffs of 14 and 10 days, respectively. All-cause in-hospital mortality was not different between the early and late tracheostomy groups (32.9% vs. 33.1%; OR = 1.00; P = 0.98). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a similar mortality rate in studies using a cutoff of 10 days (34.6% vs. 35.5%; OR = 0.97; P = 0.89) or 14 days (31.2% vs. 27.7%; OR = 1.05; P = 0.78). The early tracheostomy group had shorter ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean: 23.18 vs. 30.51 days; P < 0.001) and IMV duration (mean: 20.49 vs. 28.94 days; P < 0.001) than the late tracheostomy group. The time from tracheostomy to decannulation was longer (mean: 23.36 vs. 16.24 days; P = 0.02) in the early tracheostomy group than in the late tracheostomy group, but the time from tracheostomy to IMV weaning was similar in both groups. Other clinical characteristics, including age, were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early tracheostomy reduced the ICU LOS and IMV duration among COVID-19 patients compared with late tracheostomy, but the mortality rate was similar in both groups. The findings have important implications for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, especially in a resource-limited setting.

Characteristics, complications, and a comparison between early and late tracheostomy: A retrospective observational study on tracheostomy in patients with COVID‐19‐related acute respiratory distress syndrome

Background and Aims

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide in 2020, the number of patients requiring intensive care and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) has increased rapidly. During the pandemic, early recommendations suggested that tracheostomy should be postponed, as the potential benefits were not certain to exceed the risk of viral transmission to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, in terms of patient and clinical characteristics, outcomes, and complications, by comparing between early and late tracheostomy.

Methods

A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted in Jönköping County, Sweden. Between 14 March 2020 and 13 March 2021, 117 patients were included. All patients ≥18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19, who underwent tracheostomy were divided into two groups based on the timing of the procedure (≤/>7 days). Outcomes including the time on IMV, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and mortality 30 days after ICU admission, as well as complications due to tracheostomy were compared between the groups.

Results

Early tracheostomy (<7 days, n = 56) was associated with a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (7 [12], p = 0.001) as well as a shorter median ICU stay (8 [14], p = 0.001). The most frequent complication of tracheostomy was minor bleeding. With the exception of a higher rate of obesity in the group receiving late tracheostomy, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups.

Conclusion

This study showed that early tracheostomy was safe and associated with a shorter time on IMV as well as a shorter ICU length of stay, implicating possible clinical benefits in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, it is necessary to verify these findings in a randomized controlled trial.

Tracheostomy timing and clinical outcomes in ventilated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The association of tracheostomy timing and clinical outcomes in ventilated COVID-19 patients remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy on COVID-19 patients' outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus database, along with medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square, from December 1, 2019, to August 24, 2021. Early tracheostomy was defined as a tracheostomy conducted 14 days or less after initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Late tracheostomy was any time thereafter. Duration of IMV, duration of ICU stay, and overall mortality were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) or the mean differences (MD) with 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a cumulative 2371 tracheostomized COVID-19 patients were included in this review. Early tracheostomy was associated with significant reductions in duration of IMV (2098 patients; MD - 9.08 days, 95% CI - 10.91 to - 7.26 days, p < 0.01) and duration of ICU stay (1224 patients; MD - 9.41 days, 95% CI - 12.36 to - 6.46 days, p < 0.01). Mortality was reported for 2343 patients and was comparable between groups (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79-1.51, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, compared with late tracheostomy, early tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients was associated with shorter duration of IMV and ICU stay without modifying the mortality rate. These findings may have important implications to improve ICU availability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration The protocol was registered at INPLASY (INPLASY202180088).

Weaning Outcomes and 28-day Mortality after Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients in Central India: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Background

Tracheostomy is integral in long-term intensive care of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. There is a paucity of studies on weaning outcomes and mortality after tracheostomy in COVID-19 in Indian scenario.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective, single-center, observational study of severe COVID-19 patients who underwent elective tracheostomy (n = 65) during critical care in a tertiary care institute in Central India from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Data were collected from Medical records, ICU charts, and follow-up visits by patient. A primary objective was to study the clinical characteristics, tracheostomy complications, weaning outcomes, and mortality at 28 and 60 days of ICU admission. We categorized the cohort into two groups (deceased and survivor) and studied association of clinical parameters with 28-day mortality. Cox Proportional regression analysis was applied to calculate the hazard ratio among the predictors of mortality with p value <0.05 as significant.

Results

Elective tracheostomy was done in 69 of 436 (15.8%) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation, of which 65 were included. Tracheostomy was percutaneous in 45/65 (69%) and surgical in 20/65 (31%) with timing from intubation as early in 41/65 and late in 24/65 with most common indication as weaning failure followed by anticipated prolonged ventilation. Tracheostomy complications were present in 29/65 (45%) patients with no difference in complication rates between timing and type of tracheostomy. Downsizing, decannulation, and weaning were successful in 22%, 32 (49%), and 35/65 (54%) patients after tracheostomy. The 28-day mortality was 30/65 (46%). The fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FiO₂) requirement in survivors was lower (0.4–0.6, p = 0.015) with a higher PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (118–200, p = 0.033). Early tracheostomy within 7 days of intubation was not associated with weaning or survival benefit.

Conclusions

We suggest that tracheostomy should be delayed to after 7 days of intubation, especially till FiO₂ reduces to 0.5 with improvement in PaO₂/FiO₂ for better outcomes and avoiding a wasted procedure (CTRI/2021/07/034768).

Study Highlights

Tracheostomy is integral in care of COVID-19 patients needing prolonged ventilation. There is no difference in complications in early/late or percutaneous dilatational/surgical technique. We observed successful weaning post-tracheostomy in 54% patients. Mortality at 28 days was 46%. Early tracheostomy within 7 days of intubation did not improve weaning or survival.

How to cite this article

Karna ST, Trivedi S, Singh P, Khurana A, Gouroumourty R, Dodda B, et al. Weaning Outcomes and 28-day Mortality after Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients in Central India: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):85–93.

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation).

RESULTS

Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy.

INTERPRETATION

Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.

Measurement of airborne particle emission during surgical and percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy COVID-19 adapted procedures in a swine model: Experimental report and review of literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgical tracheostomy (ST) and Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) are classified as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures and might lead to healthcare workers (HCW) infection. Albeit the COVID-19 strain slightly released since the vaccination era, preventing HCW from infection remains a major economical and medical concern. To date, there is no study monitoring particle emissions during ST and PDT in a clinical setting. The aim of this study was to monitor particle emissions during ST and PDT in a swine model.

METHODS

A randomized animal study on swine model with induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was conducted. A dedicated room with controlled airflow was used to standardize the measurements obtained using an airborne optical particle counter. 6 ST and 6 PDT were performed in 12 pigs. Airborne particles (diameter of 0.5 to 3 μm) were continuously measured; video and audio data were recorded. The emission of particles was considered as significant if the number of particles increased beyond the normal variations of baseline particle contamination determinations in the room. These significant emissions were interpreted in the light of video and audio recordings. Duration of procedures, number of expiratory pauses, technical errors and adverse events were also analyzed.

RESULTS

10 procedures (5 ST and 5 PDT) were fully analyzable. There was no systematic aerosolization during procedures. However, in 1/5 ST and 4/5 PDT, minor leaks and some adverse events (cuff perforation in 1 ST and 1 PDT) occurred. Human factors were responsible for 1 aerosolization during 1 PDT procedure. ST duration was significantly shorter than PDT (8.6 ± 1.3 vs 15.6 ± 1.9 minutes) and required less expiratory pauses (1 vs 6.8 ± 1.2).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 adaptations allow preventing for major aerosol leaks for both ST and PDT, contributing to preserving healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak, but failed to achieve a perfectly airtight procedure. However, with COVID-19 adaptations, PDT required more expiratory pauses and more time than ST. Human factors and adverse events may lead to aerosolization and might be more frequent in PDT.

The Effect of Isotonic Saline Nasal Lavages in Improving Symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case-Control Study

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mainly colonizes nasopharynx. In upper airways acute infections, e.g., the common cold, saline nasal irrigations have a significant efficacy in reducing symptoms. The present study aimed to test the efficacy of nasal lavages in upper airways symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: A series of consecutive adult subjects who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from December 2020 to February 2021 performed daily nasal lavages with saline solution (Lavonase®—Purling, Lugo di Romagna, Italy) for 12 days, starting on the day after the SARS-CoV-2 positive swab. A control group included a historical series of patients who were infected in February-March 2020 and who did not perform lavages. An ad hoc questionnaire regarding symptoms was administered to each subjects at base-line and 10 days after diagnosis (i.e., on the same day of the control swab) in both cases and controls.

Results: A total of 140 subjects were enrolled. 68 participants in the treatment group and 72 in the control group were included. 90% of respondents declared the lavages were simple to use and 70% declared they were satisfied. Symptoms of blocked nose, runny nose, or sneezing decreased by an average of 24.7% after the treatment. Blocked nose and sneezing increased in the same period of time in the control group. Ears and eyes symptoms, anosmia/ageusia symptoms, and infection duration (10.53 days in the treatment group and 10.48 days in the control group) didn't vary significantly among the two groups.

Conclusion: Nasal lavages resulted to significantly decrease nasal symptoms in newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 patients. These devices proved to be well-tolerated and easy to be used. Further studies on a larger number of subjects are needed in order to possibly confirm these preliminary results.

Tracheostomy in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients and follow-up: A parisian bicentric retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18th, 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications.

RESULTS

Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients' characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12-22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the "early" group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the "late" group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22-41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15-34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12-19] versus 35 [25-47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16-28] versus 54 [35-72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14-20] and 35 [27-43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34-81] versus 92 [61-118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11-38] versus 45 [22-71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.

Tracheotomy Outcomes in 71 COVID-19 Patients: A Multi-Centric Study in Saudi Arabia

Since its outbreak in late 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a sharp rise in the demand for oxygen and ventilation facilities due to the associated extensive damage that it causes to the lungs. This study is considered the first and largest study in Saudi Arabia to evaluate the outcomes of tracheostomy in intubated COVID-19 patients. This is a retrospective, observational cohort study that was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Jeddah, Western Region, Saudi Arabia and King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The findings of the study revealed that seventy-one patients with COVID-19 underwent tracheotomy between 1 March 2020 and 31 October 2020. The average period between intubation and tracheostomy was 9.97 days. Hypertension, diabetes, lung disease and obesity (BMI > 30) were significant risk factors of mortality. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 38.4%.

Timing of tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients

According to the World Health Organization as of September 16, 2021, there have been over 226 million documented cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has resulted in more than 4.6 million deaths and approximately 14% develop a more severe disease that requires respiratory assistance such as intubation. Early tracheostomy is recommended for patients that are expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation; however, supporting data has not yet been provided for early tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to explore established guidelines for performing tracheostomies in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Factors considered were patient outcomes such as mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, intensive care unit length of stay, complications associated with procedures, and risks to healthcare providers that performed tracheostomies. Various observational studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were collected through a PubMed Database search. Additional sources were found through Google. The search was refined to publications in English and between the years of 2003 and 2021. The keywords used were “Coronavirus” and/or “guidelines'' and/or “tracheostomy” and/or “intensive care”. Twenty-three studies were retained. Due to the complex presentation of the respiratory virus COVID-19, previously established guidelines for tracheostomies had to be reevaluated to determine if these guidelines were still applicable to these critically ill ventilated patients. More specifically, medical guidelines state benefits to early tracheostomies in critically ill ventilated non-COVID-19 patients. However, after having conducted this review, the assumptions about the benefits of early tracheostomies in critically ill ventilated patients may not be appropriate for COVID-19 patients.

D-dimer, disease severity, and deaths (3D-study) in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 100 studies

Hypercoagulability and the need for prioritizing coagulation markers for prognostic abilities have been highlighted in COVID-19. We aimed to quantify the associations of D-dimer with disease progression in patients with COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020186661.We included 113 studies in our systematic review, of which 100 records (n = 38,310) with D-dimer data) were considered for meta-analysis. Across 68 unadjusted (n = 26,960) and 39 adjusted studies (n = 15,653) reporting initial D-dimer, a significant association was found in patients with higher D-dimer for the risk of overall disease progression (unadjusted odds ratio (uOR) 3.15; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.64). The time-to-event outcomes were pooled across 19 unadjusted (n = 9743) and 21 adjusted studies (n = 13,287); a strong association was found in patients with higher D-dimers for the risk of overall disease progression (unadjusted hazard ratio (uHR) 1.41; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.10). The prognostic use of higher D-dimer was found to be promising for predicting overall disease progression (studies 68, area under curve 0.75) in COVID-19. Our study showed that higher D-dimer levels provide prognostic information useful for clinicians to early assess COVID-19 patients at risk for disease progression and mortality outcomes. This study, recommends rapid assessment of D-dimer for predicting adverse outcomes in COVID-19.

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.

Revised recommendations from the CSO-HNS taskforce on performance of tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic - what a difference a year makes

Background

During the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS) task force published recommendations on performance of tracheotomy. Since then, our understanding of the virus has evolved with ongoing intensive research efforts. New literature has helped us better understand various aspects including patient outcomes and health care worker (HCW) risks associated with tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the task force has re-evaluated and revised some of the previous recommendations.

Main body

Based on recent evidence, a negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 swab status is no longer the main deciding factor in the timing of tracheotomy. Instead, tracheotomy may be considered as soon as COVID-19 swab positive patients are greater than 20 days beyond initial symptoms and 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, both open and percutaneous surgical techniques may be considered with both techniques showing similar safety and outcome profiles. Additional recommendations with discussion of current evidence are presented.

Conclusion

These revised recommendations apply new evidence in optimizing patient and health care system outcomes as well as minimizing risks of COVID-19 transmission during aerosol-generating tracheotomy procedures. As previously noted, additional evidence may lead to further evolution of these and other similar recommendations.

Graphical abstract

Practice of tracheostomy in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 - Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study

Objective

Invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) potentially benefit from tracheostomy. The aim of this study was to determine the practice of tracheostomy during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands, to ascertain whether timing of tracheostomy had an association with outcome, and to identify factors that had an association with timing.

Methods

Secondary analysis of the ‘PRactice of VENTilation in COVID–19’ (PRoVENT–COVID) study, a multicenter observational study, conducted from March 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 in 22 Dutch intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were timing of tracheostomy, duration of ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, and factors associated with timing.

Results

Of 1023 patients, 189 patients (18.5%) received a tracheostomy at median 21 [17 to 28] days from start of ventilation. Timing was similar before and after online publication of an amendment to the Dutch national guidelines on tracheostomy focusing on COVID–19 patients (21 [17–28] vs. 21 [17–26] days). Tracheostomy performed ≤ 21 days was independently associated with shorter duration of ventilation (median 26 [21 to 32] vs. 40 [34 to 47] days) and higher mortality in ICU (22.1% vs. 10.2%), hospital (26.1% vs. 11.9%) and at day 90 (27.6% vs. 14.6%). There were no patient demographics or ventilation characteristics that had an association with timing of tracheostomy.

Conclusions

Tracheostomy was performed late in COVID–19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands and timing of tracheostomy possibly had an association with outcome. However, prospective studies are needed to further explore these associations. It remains unknown which factors influenced timing of tracheostomy in COVID–19 patients.

Tracheotomy in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Weaning, Decannulation, and Survival

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the cumulative incidences of decannulation and mechanical ventilation weaning in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who have undergone a tracheotomy. Weighted average mean times to tracheotomy, to decannulation, and to death were calculated from reported or approximated means.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were screened by 3 investigators independently. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies including patients with COVID-19 who underwent a tracheotomy were identified. Studies without reported mechanical ventilation weaning or decannulation were excluded. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

After identifying 232 unique studies, 18 articles encompassing outcomes for 3234 patients were ultimately included for meta-analysis, with a weighted mean follow-up time of 28.6 ± 6.2 days after tracheotomy. Meta-analysis revealed that 55.0% of tracheotomized patients were weaned successfully from mechanical ventilation (95% CI, 47.4%-62.2%). Approximately 34.9% of patients were decannulated successfully, with a mean decannulation time of 18.6 ± 5.7 days after tracheotomy. The pooled mortality in tracheotomized patients with COVID-19 was 13.1%, with a mean time of death of 13.0 ± 4.0 days following tracheotomy.

CONCLUSION

At the current state of the coronavirus pandemic, over half of patients who have required tracheotomies are being weaned off of mechanical ventilation. While 13.1% patients have died prior to decannulation, over a third of all tracheotomized patients with COVID-19 reported in the literature have undergone successful decannulation.

Tracheostomy for COVID-19 respiratory failure: timing, ventilatory characteristics, and outcomes

Background

Whereas data from the pre-pandemic era have demonstrated that tracheostomy can accelerate liberation from the ventilator, reduce need for sedation, and facilitate rehabilitation, concerns for healthcare worker safety have led to disagreement on tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients. Data on COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy may inform best practices. Thus, we report a retrospective institutional cohort experience with tracheostomy in ventilated patients with COVID-19, examining associations between time to tracheostomy and duration of mechanical ventilation in relation to patient characteristics, clinical course, and survival.

Methods

Clinical data were extracted for all COVID-19 tracheostomies performed at a quaternary referral center from April-July 2020. Outcomes studied included mortality, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to decannulation.

Results

Among 64 COVID-19 tracheostomies (13% of COVID-19 hospitalizations), patients were 64% male and 42% African American, with a median age of 54 (range, 20–89). Median time to tracheostomy was 22 (range, 7–60) days and median duration of mechanical ventilation was 39.4 (range, 20–113) days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with shortened mechanical ventilation (R²=0.4, P<0.01). Median decannulation time was 35.3 (range, 7–79) days. There was 19% mortality and adverse events in 45%, mostly from bleeding in therapeutically anticoagulated patients.

Conclusions

Tracheostomy was associated with swifter liberation from the ventilator and acceptable safety for physicians in this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patient mortality was not increased relative to historical data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Future studies are required to establish conclusions of causality regarding tracheostomy timing with mechanical ventilation, complications, or mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients: Experience at a Tertiary Center in the First 11 Months of the Pandemic

This study aimed to evaluate the experience of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients in a Southern Europe tertiary hospital. Retrospective observational study in tracheostomized patients from April 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021. Data related to tracheostomy were evaluated in patients with and without COVID-19, including infections in healthcare professionals involved in patient care. Forty-two tracheostomies were performed in COVID-19 patients aged 68.4 ± 11.1 years, predominantly men (71%) and caucasians (81%). They had at least 1 comorbidity (93%), on average 3. The most frequent were heart disease (71%), age > 65 years (67%) diabetes (40%) and obesity (33%). The greater number of comorbidities was associated with the lesser probability of the patient's recovery (p = .001). Age (p = .047) and renal failure (p = .013) were associated with higher mortality. Patients were tracheostomized by prolonged endo-tracheal intubation (50%), pneumonia (33%) and extubation failure (10%). Ventilation time before the tracheostomy (22.9 ± 6.5 days) was higher than ventilation time after the tracheostomy (7.1 ± 15.1 days) (p < 0.001). No differences were found in ventilation time (p = 0.094) and tracheostomy time (p = 0.514) in the different indications. There were 3 minor complications (7.1%), 25 discharges (60%) and 11 deaths (26%). During the same period 49 tracheostomies were performed in patients without COVID-19, with a homogeneous gender and age distribution, 31% without comorbidities, with an average of 1 comorbidity per patient and higher mortality (43%). Tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients proved to be a safe procedure for both patients and healthcare professionals and improves the clinical outcome of patients with severe infection. The 21-day procedure timing seems adequate. Comorbidities played an essential role in patient´s recovery. Age and renal failure are associated with a worse vital prognosis.

Tips and Pearls for Tracheostomy during the Covid-19 Pandemic

The number of critically-ill coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) patients requiring mechanical ventilation is on the rise. Most guidelines suggest keeping the patient intubated and delay elective tracheostomy. Although the current literature does not support early tracheostomy, the number of patients undergoing it is increasing. During the pandemic, it is important that surgeons and anesthesiologists know the different aspects of tracheostomy in terms of indication, procedure, tube care and complications. A literature search was performed to identify different guidelines and available evidence on tracheostomy in Covid-19 patients. The purpose of the present article is to generate an essential scientific evidence for life-saving tracheostomy procedures.

Outcomes of Ttracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients: A Single Centre Experience

The rapid emergence of COVID-19 has led to increase in the number of patients requiring prolonged ventilation and tracheostomy. Though global guidelines are evolving, there is a paucity of literature about optimal timing and outcome after tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. We set out to assess the clinical characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy.This single-center, prospective observational cohort study analyzed all the consecutive tracheostomy performed on COVID-19 patients from April 1 2020 to January 31, 2021. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day mortality rate following tracheostomy and association with various prognostic risk factors. The secondary outcome measures included various tracheostomy-related events, perioperative complications, and decannulation rate.The study included 51 patients with a median age of 52 years and the majority were male (62.74%). 62.74% (32 of 51) tracheostomies were done early (within 10 days of intubation) and the mean duration from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy was 10.27 days. The 30-day mortality rate was 66.66% (34 of 51) with no tracheostomy-related mortality and the mean duration between tracheostomy and death was 8.29 days. The presence of sepsis was associated with a higher rate of mortality (p = 0.002) while the timing of tracheostomy was not related to increased mortality (p = 0.365). The most common perioperative complication was tracheostoma bleeding (16.64%). At a median follow-up of 7.5 months, only four patients were decannulated.Though associated with a higher rate of 30-day mortality rate, tracheostomy among COVID-19 patients is a safe and an effective weaning tool.

Association of Tracheostomy With Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Approximately 5% to 15% of patients with COVID-19 require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and, at times, tracheostomy. Details regarding the safety and use of tracheostomy in treating COVID-19 continue to evolve.

Objective

To evaluate the association of tracheostomy with COVID-19 patient outcomes and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health care professionals (HCPs).

Data Sources

EMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to March 4, 2021.

Study Selection

English-language studies investigating patients with COVID-19 who were receiving IMV and undergoing tracheostomy. Observational and randomized clinical trials were eligible (no randomized clinical trials were found in the search). All screening was performed by 2 reviewers (P.S. and M.L.). Overall, 156 studies underwent full-text review.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

We performed data extraction in accordance with Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We used a random-effects model, and ROBINS-I was used for the risk-of-bias analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

SARS-CoV-2 transmission between HCPs and levels of personal protective equipment, in addition to complications, time to decannulation, ventilation weaning, and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy.

Results

Of the 156 studies that underwent full-text review, only 69 were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 14 of these 69 studies (20.3%) were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 4669 patients were included in the 69 studies, and the mean (range) patient age across studies was 60.7 (49.1-68.8) years (43 studies [62.3%] with 1856 patients). We found that in all studies, 1854 patients (73.8%) were men and 658 (26.2%) were women. We found that 28 studies (40.6%) investigated either surgical tracheostomy or percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. Overall, 3 of 58 studies (5.17%) identified a small subset of HCPs who developed COVID-19 that was associated with tracheostomy. Studies did not consistently report the number of HCPs involved in tracheostomy. Among the patients, early tracheostomy was associated with faster ICU discharge (mean difference, 6.17 days; 95% CI, -11.30 to -1.30), but no change in IMV weaning (mean difference, -2.99 days; 95% CI, -8.32 to 2.33) or decannulation (mean difference, -3.12 days; 95% CI, -7.35 to 1.12). There was no association between mortality or perioperative complications and type of tracheostomy. A risk-of-bias evaluation that used ROBINS-I demonstrated notable bias in the confounder and patient selection domains because of a lack of randomization and cohort matching. There was notable heterogeneity in study reporting.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that enhanced personal protective equipment is associated with low rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 may reduce ICU stay, but this finding is limited by the observational nature of the included studies.

Clinical Significance of Plasma D-Dimer in COVID-19 Mortality

It is not clear whether D-dimer can be an independent predictor of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality, and the cut-off of D-dimer for clinical use remains to be determined. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis is still necessary to illuminate the clinical significance of plasma D-dimer in COVID-19 mortality. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases until November 2020. STATA software was used for all the statistical analyses. The identifier of systematic review registration was PROSPERO CRD42020220927. A total of 66 studies involving 40,614 COVID-19 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled data showed that patients in high D-dimer group had poor prognosis than those in low D-dimer group [OR = 4.52, 95% CI = (3.61, 5.67), P < 0.001; HR = 2.81, 95% CI = (1.85, 4.27), P < 0.001]. Sensitivity analysis, pooled data based on different effect models and the Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill method did not change the conclusions. Subgroup analyses stratified by different countries, cutoffs, sample size, study design, and analysis of OR/HR still keep consistent conclusions. D-dimer was identified as an independent predictor for COVID-19 mortality. A series of values including 0.5 μg/ml, 1 μg/ml, and 2 μg/ml could be determined as cutoff of D-dimer for clinic use. Measurement and monitoring of D-dimer might assist clinicians to take immediate medical actions and predict the prognosis of COVID-19.

Is 2020 the golden year of Otolaryngology research? The impact of COVID-19 on the Italian academic production

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this research was to review the articles published by the Otolaryngology (ORL) departments of the Italian University Hospitals in 2019 and in 2020 in order to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic production.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for the articles published by the ORL departments of the Italian Universities in 2019 and in 2020. The main eligibility criteria were English-language articles, while there were no exclusion criteria related to topic. The articles were classified into seven domains corresponding to the main ORL subspecialties.

RESULTS

There was an overall increase in the number of articles by the 42.2% in 2020. Publications pertaining Rhinology and Laryngology increased more significantly in 2020, respectively by the 50.5% and 72.2%. Additionally, there was an increase in the number of articles concerning topics of general interest, by the 95.2% in 2020. Also, the citation trends of the articles published by the Italian University Hospitals increased remarkably in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

These results evidenced an overall increase in the number of ORL articles. Although 2020 is going to be remembered as a year to forget, it should be acknowledged for being the "golden year of research".

Tracheostomy in Covid-19 Patients: Surgical Concerns and Considerations

Tracheostomy in Covid-19 patients is an aerosol generating procedure putting health care workers at great risk. Retrospective study of tracheostomy in ten Covid-19 patients with ARDS using modifications of the surgical techniques revealed its efficacy in limiting the risks of spread to health care workers and improving surgical outcome.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Tracheostomy, Discharge, and Rehabilitation Measures in Hospitalized Patients Recovering From Severe COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

New studies of COVID-19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. However, research mainly originates in resource-rich settings in high-income countries. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on these investigations to resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for tracheostomy, discharge, and rehabilitation measures in hospitalized patients recovering from severe COVID-19 in LMICs. We recommend that tracheostomy be performed in a negative pressure room or negative pressure operating room, if possible, and otherwise in a single room with a closed door. We recommend using the technique that is most familiar to the institution and that can be conducted most safely. We recommend using fit-tested enhanced personal protection equipment, with the fewest people required, and incorporating strategies to minimize aerosolization of the virus. For recovering patients, we suggest following local, regional, or national hospital discharge guidelines. If these are lacking, we suggest deisolation and hospital discharge using symptom-based criteria, rather than with testing. We likewise suggest taking into consideration the capability of primary caregivers to provide the necessary care to meet the psychological, physical, and neurocognitive needs of the patient.

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.

Modified percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19

Background

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at risk of developing hypoxic respiratory failure and often require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Indication and timing to perform tracheostomy is controversial in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This was a single-institution retrospective review of tracheostomies performed on patients admitted for COVID-19 between April 8, 2020 and August 1, 2020 using a modified percutaneous tracheostomy technique to minimize hypoxia and aerosolization.

Results

Twelve tracheostomies were performed for COVID-related respiratory failure. Median patient age was 54 years (range: 36–76) and 9 (75%) were male. Median time to tracheostomy was 17 days (range: 10–27), and 5 (42%) patients had failed attempts at extubation prior to tracheostomy. There were no intraprocedural complications, including hypoxia. Post-tracheostomy bleeding was noted in two patients. Eight (67%) patients have been discharged at the time of this study, and there were four patient deaths unrelated to tracheostomy placement. No healthcare worker transmissions resulted from participating in the tracheostomy procedure.

Conclusions

A modified percutaneous tracheostomy is feasible and can be safely performed in patients infected with COVID-19.

Level of evidence

Level V, case series.

Safety of bedside surgical tracheostomy during COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective observational study

Data regarding safety of bedside surgical tracheostomy in novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are lacking. We performed this study to assess the safety of bedside surgical tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. This retrospective, single-center, cohort observational study (conducted between February, 23 and April, 30, 2020) was performed in our 45-bed dedicated COVID-19 ICU. Inclusion criteria were: a) age over 18 years; b) confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (with nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab); c) invasive mechanical ventilation and d) clinical indication for tracheostomy. The objectives of this study were to describe: 1) perioperative complications, 2) perioperative alterations in respiratory gas exchange and 3) occurrence of COVID-19 infection among health-care providers involved into the procedure. A total of 125 COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU during the study period. Of those, 66 (53%) underwent tracheostomy. Tracheostomy was performed after a mean of 6.1 (± 2.1) days since ICU admission. Most of tracheostomies (47/66, 71%) were performed by intensivists and the mean time of the procedure was 22 (± 4.4) minutes. No intraprocedural complications was reported. Stoma infection and bleeding were reported in 2 patients and 7 patients, respectively, in the post-procedure period, without significant clinical consequences. The mean PaO₂ / FiO₂ was significantly lower at the end of tracheostomy (117.6 ± 35.4) then at the beginning (133.4 ± 39.2) or 24 hours before (135.8 ± 51.3) the procedure. However, PaO₂/FiO₂ progressively increased at 24 hours after tracheostomy (142 ± 50.7). None of the members involved in the tracheotomy procedures developed COVID-19 infection. Bedside surgical tracheostomy appears to be feasible and safe, both for patients and for health care workers, during COVID-19 pandemic in an experienced center.