Aerosol-generating procedure; percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy

Safety of tracheostomy during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Some patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) require prolonged mechanical ventilation. An early tracheostomy strategy while on ECMO has appeared to be beneficial for these patients. This study aims to explore the safety of tracheostomy in ECMO patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational single-center study.

RESULTS

Hundred and nine patients underwent tracheostomy (76 percutaneous and 33 surgical) during V-V ECMO support over an 8-year period. Patients with a percutaneous tracheostomy showed a significantly shorter ECMO duration [25.5 (17.3-40.1) vs 37.2 (26.5-53.2) days, p = 0.013] and a shorter ECMO-to-tracheostomy time [13.3 (8.5-19.7) vs 27.8 (16.3-36.9) days, p < 0.001] compared to those who underwent a surgical approach. There was no difference between the two strategies regarding both major and minor/no bleeding (p = 0.756). There was no difference in survival rate between patients who underwent percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy (p = 0.173). Patients who underwent an early tracheostomy (within 10 days from ECMO insertion) showed a significantly shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and a shorter duration of V-V ECMO support (p < 0.001). Our series includes 24 patients affected by COVID-19, who did not show significantly higher rates of major bleeding when compared to non-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.297). Within the COVID-19 subgroup, there was no difference in major bleeding rates between surgical and percutaneous approach (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy during ECMO have a similar safety profile in terms of bleeding risk and mortality. Percutaneous tracheostomy may favor a shorter duration of ECMO support and hospital stay and can be considered a safe alternative to surgical tracheostomy, even in COVID-19 patients, if relevant clinical expertise is available.

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.