Tracheostomy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 reduces time on mechanical ventilation but not intensive care unit stay

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of onco-hematologic patients: a discussion paper

We do not know the precise figure for solid organ tumors diagnosed each year in Spain and it is therefore difficult to calculate whether there has been a decrease in cancer diagnoses as a consequence of the pandemic. Some indirect data suggest that the pandemic has worsened the stage at which some non-hematological neoplasms are diagnosed. Despite the lack of robust evidence, oncology patients seem more likely to have a poor outcome when they contract COVID-19. The antibody response to infection in cancer patients will be fundamentally conditioned by the type of neoplasia present, the treatment received and the time of its administration. In patients with hematological malignancies, the incidence of infection is probably similar or lower than in the general population, due to the better protective measures adopted by the patients and their environment. The severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies is clearly higher than the general population. Since the immune response to vaccination in hematologic patients is generally worse than in comparable populations, alternative methods of prevention must be established in these patients, as well as actions for earlier diagnosis and treatment. Campaigns for the early diagnosis of malignant neoplasms must be urgently resumed, post-COVID manifestations should be monitored, collaboration with patient associations is indisputable and it is urgent to draw the right conclusions to improve our preparedness to fight against possible future catastrophes.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Tracheostomy for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can cause severe respiratory failure leading to prolonged mechanical ventilation. Data are just emerging about the practice and outcomes of tracheostomy in these patients. We reviewed our experience with tracheostomies for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, comorbidities, timing of mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay in SARS-CoV-2 patients who received tracheostomies performed by the interventional pulmonary team. A tertiary care, teaching hospital in Chicago, Illinois. From March 2020 to April 2021, our center had 473 patients intubated for SARS-CoV-2, and 72 (15%) had percutaneous bedside tracheostomy performed by the interventional pulmonary team.

RESULTS

Median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 20 (interquartile range: 16 to 25) days. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between early and late tracheostomy, but early tracheostomy was associated with shorter intensive care unit lengths of stay and a shorter total duration of ventilation. To date, 39 (54%) patients have been decannulated, 17 (24%) before hospital discharge; median time to decannulation was 22 (IQR: 18 to 36) days. Patients that were decannulated were younger (56 vs. 69 y). The rate of decannulation for survivors was 82%. No providers developed symptoms or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSION

Tracheostomy enhances care for patients with prolonged respiratory failure from SARS-CoV-2 since early tracheostomy is associated with shorter duration of critical care, and decannulation rates are high for survivors. It furthermore appears safe for both patients and operators.

A 30-day Survival and Safety of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Single-center Experience

Aims and objectives

In coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, guidelines on timing and method of tracheostomy are evolving. The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients who required tracheostomy and the safety with regard to the risk of transmission to the healthcare workers.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 30-day survival outcome of a total of 70 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients on a ventilator, wherein tracheostomy was performed only in 28 (tracheostomy group), and the remaining were with endotracheal intubation beyond 7 days (non-tracheostomy group). Besides demographics, comorbidities and clinical data including 30-day survival and complications of tracheostomy were analyzed in both groups with respect to the timing of tracheostomy from the day of intubation. Healthcare workers were monitored for COVID-19 symptoms by carrying out periodical COVID tests.

Results

The 30-day survival of the tracheostomy group was 75% as compared to 26.2% of the non-tracheostomy group. The majority of the patients (71.4%) had severe disease with PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F ratio) <100. The first wave showed an 80% (4/5) while the second wave 100% (8/8) thirty days survival in the tracheostomy group performed before 13 days. All patients during the second wave underwent tracheostomy before 13 days with a median of 12th day from the day of intubation. These tracheostomies were performed percutaneously at the bedside, without any major complications and no transmission of disease to healthcare workers.

Conclusion

Early percutaneous tracheostomy within 13 days of intubation demonstrated a good 30-day survival rate in severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients.

How to cite this article

Shah M, Bhatuka N, Shalia K, Patel M. A 30-day Survival and Safety of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Single-center Experience. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(10):1120-1125.

Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients: 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.

Histologic evidence of tracheal stenosis directly resulting from SARS-CoV-2 tissue infiltration, a case series

BACKGROUND

There has been an anecdotal increase in the incidence of tracheal stenosis that has coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

CASE PRESENTATION

This is a case series in which we report clinical and pathologic findings of two patients who subsequently developed subglottic tracheal stenosis after having been hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Histopathologic analysis of tissue from these patients shows features consistent with tissue infiltrated with SARS-CoV-2 virus, namely multinucleated syncytial cells with prominent nucleoli.

CONCLUSION

Our findings directly implicate SARS-CoV-2 in the pathogenesis of tracheal stenosis.

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.

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.

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.

Tracheostomy Timing and Outcome in Severe COVID-19: The WeanTrach Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy can be performed safely in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, little is known about the optimal timing, effects on outcome, and complications.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective, observational study. This study included 153 tracheostomized COVID-19 patients from 11 intensive care units (ICUs). The primary endpoint was the median time to tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Secondary endpoints were survival rate, length of ICU stay, and post-tracheostomy complications, stratified by tracheostomy timing (early versus late) and technique (surgical versus percutaneous).

RESULTS

The median time to tracheostomy was 15 (1-64) days. There was no significant difference in survival between critically ill COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy before versus after day 15, nor between surgical and percutaneous techniques. ICU length of stay was shorter with early compared to late tracheostomy (p < 0.001) and percutaneous compared to surgical tracheostomy (p = 0.050). The rate of lower respiratory tract infections was higher with surgical versus percutaneous technique (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, neither early nor percutaneous tracheostomy improved outcomes, but did shorten ICU stay. Infectious complications were less frequent with percutaneous than surgical tracheostomy.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Tracheostomy for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 can cause severe respiratory failure leading to prolonged mechanical ventilation. Data are just emerging about the practice and outcomes of tracheostomy in these patients. We reviewed our experience with tracheostomies for SARS-CoV-2 at our tertiary-care, urban teaching hospital.

METHODS

We reviewed the demographics, comorbidities, timing of mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and ICU and hospital lengths-of-stay (LOS) in SARS-CoV-2 patients who received tracheostomies. Early tracheostomy was considered <14 days of ventilation. Medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated and compared with Wilcoxon rank sum, Spearman correlation, Kruskal-Wallis, and regression modeling.

RESULTS

From March 2020 to January 2021, our center had 370 patients intubated for SARS-CoV-2, and 59 (16%) had percutaneous bedside tracheostomy. Median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 19 (IQR 17 - 24) days. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between early and late tracheostomy, but early tracheostomy was associated with shorter ICU LOS and a trend towards shorter ventilation. To date, 34 (58%) of patients have been decannulated, 17 (29%) before hospital discharge; median time to decannulation was 24 (IQR 19-38) days. Decannulated patients were younger (56 vs 69 years), and in regression analysis, pneumothorax was associated was associated with lower decannulation rates (OR 0.05, 95CI 0.01 - 0.37). No providers developed symptoms or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS

Tracheostomy is a safe and reasonable procedure for patients with prolonged SARS-CoV-2 respiratory failure. We feel that tracheostomy enhances care for SARS-CoV-2 since early tracheostomy appears associated with shorter duration of critical care, and decannulation rates appear high for survivors.