Comparison of percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy versus open surgical technique in severe COVID-19: Complication rates, relative risks and benefits

Safety of cricotracheostomy with skin and tracheal membrane flaps for severe COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

Airway surgery is performed for COVID-19 patients who require long-term tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy sometimes causes postoperative complications represented by bleeding at a relatively high rate in COVID-19 patients. As an alternative surgical procedure to tracheostomy, cricotracheostomy may reduce these complications, but few studies have examined its safety.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected for sixteen COVID-19 patients (11 underwent tracheostomy, 5 underwent modified cricotracheostomy). In addition to patients' backgrounds and blood test data, the frequency of complications and additional care required for postoperative complications were collected. Statistical analysis was conducted by the univariate analysis of Fischer analysis and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Five cases experienced postoperative bleeding, four cases experienced peristomal infection, and one case experienced subcutaneous emphysema in the tracheostomy patients. These complications were not observed in the cricotracheostomy patients. The number of additional cares for postoperative complications was significantly lower in cricotracheostomy than in tracheostomy patients (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Modified cricotracheostomy could be a safe procedure in airway surgery for patients with COVID-19 from the point of fewer postoperative complications and additional care. It might be necessary to select the cricotracheostomy depending on patients' background to reduce postoperative complications.

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.

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.

Development and validation of an online nomogram for predicting the outcome of open tracheotomy decannulation: a two-center retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Tracheotomy decannulation is critical for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) to recover. In this study, we developed and validated an intuitive nomogram to predict the success rate of tracheotomy decannulation.

METHODS

We collected the data of 627 ICU patients before open tracheotomy decannulation from two medical institutions, including 466 patients (135 success and 331 failure) from the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University as a training cohort, and 161 patients (57 success and 104 failure) from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University as an external validation cohort. A least absolute shrinkage and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to determine the independent risk factors and construct the nomogram. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess discrimination and the calibration plots were used to assess consistency. The clinical application was assessed using decision curve analysis and the clinical impact curve.

RESULTS

7 independent risk factors were eventually included in the prediction model. The AUC of the training cohort, internal validation and external validation were 0.932, 0.926, and 0.915, showing good discrimination. The model performed well in terms of calibration, decision curve analysis, and clinical impact curves. The superior performance of the model was also confirmed by external validation.

CONCLUSION

This nomogram can help ICU physicians identify high-risk patients for decannulation and plan their pre-decannulation treatment accordingly.

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.

A safer and more practical tracheotomy in invasive mechanical ventilated patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement study

IMPORTANCE

The number of infections and deaths caused by the global epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) invasion is steadily increasing daily. In the early stages of outbreak, approximately 15%-20% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) inevitably developed severe and critically ill forms of the disease, especially elderly patients and those with several or serious comorbidities. These more severe forms of disease mainly manifest as dyspnea, reduced blood oxygen saturation, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), thus requiring prolonged advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to propose a safer and more practical tracheotomy in invasive mechanical ventilated patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

This is a single center quality improvement study.

PARTICIPANTS

Tracheotomy is a necessary and important step in airway management for COVID-19 patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation, IMV, failed extubation, and ventilator dependence. Standardized third-level protection measures and bulky personal protective equipment (PPE) may hugely impede the implementation of tracheotomy, especially when determining the optimal pre-surgical positioning for COVID-19 patients with ambiguous surface position, obesity, short neck or limited neck extension, due to vision impairment, reduced tactile sensation and motility associated with PPE. Consequently, the aim of this study was to propose a safer and more practical tracheotomy, namely percutaneous dilated tracheotomy (PDT) with delayed endotracheal intubation withdrawal under the guidance of bedside ultrasonography without the conventional use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FFB), which can accurately determine the optimal pre-surgical positioning, as well as avoid intraoperative damage of the posterior tracheal wall and prevent the occurrence of tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF).

SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to healthcare workers performing tracheostomies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed.

METHODS

This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

The Feasibility of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomy in Immunosuppressed ICU Patients with or without Thrombocytopenia

Background

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has become the preferred method in several intensive care units (ICUs), but data on PDT performed in immunosuppressed and thrombocytopenic patients are scarce. This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of PDT in immunosuppressed and thrombocytopenic patients compared to conventional open surgical tracheostomy (OST).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the charts of patients who underwent PDT or OST between May 2017 and November 2020. Our outcomes were stoma site infections and bleeding complications.

Results

63 patients underwent PDT, and 21 patients underwent OST. Distribution of gender ratio, age, SAPS II, time of ventilation before tracheostomy, and preexisting hematooncological diseases was comparable between the two groups. After allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), patients were more likely to undergo PDT than OST (p=0.033). The PDT cohort suffered from mucositis more frequently (p=0.043). There were no significant differences in leucocyte or platelet count on the tracheostomy day. Patients with coagulation disorders and patients under immunosuppression were distributed equally among both groups. Stoma site infection was documented in five cases in PDT and eight cases in the OST group. Moderate infections were remarkably increased in the OST group. Smears were positive in six cases in the PDT group; none of these patients had local infection signs. In the OST group, smears were positive in four cases; all had signs of a stroma site infection. Postprocedural bleedings occurred in eight cases (9.5%) and were observed significantly more often in the OST group (p=0.001), leading to emergency surgery in one case of the OST group.

Conclusion

PDT is a feasible and safe procedure in a predominantly immunosuppressed and thrombocytopenic patient cohort without an increased risk for stoma site infections or bleeding complications.

Aerosol-generating procedure; percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare percutaneous tracheostomy (PCT) and surgical tracheostomy's aerosol and droplet scattering by using a particle counter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out with 35 patients between October 2020 and June 2021. All personal protective equipment was provided to protect healthcare workers. Measurements were made in the 5 s period before the tracheal incision and the 5 s period after the tracheal incision.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 15 female and 20 male patients in this study was 68.88 ± 13.48 years old (range: 33-95 years old). Patients were intubated for an average of 22 days. Particle amounts were found to be significantly higher at 5 μm (p = 0.003) and 10 μm (p = 0.012) during PCT. In surgical tracheostomy, there was no significant increase in the number of particles. When the particle measurement values of both methods were compared with each other, there was a significantly more particle scattering in PCT than in surgical tracheotomy at 0.3 μm (p = 0.034), 5 μm (p = 0.001), and 10 μm (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

According to the data in our study, a surgical tracheotomy was not identified as an aerosol-generating procedure. Considering the risk of airborne transmission may increase due to viral mutations, we have shown that surgical tracheostomy may be more appropriate in patients who need a tracheostomy. Of course, the use of personal protective equipment during these processes is very important.

Recommendations from the Italian Society of Otolaryngology for clinical management during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply impacted health, and affects many different medical specialties. Head and neck surgeons, in particular, have been recognised as one of the professionals at the highest risk of infection through aerosol-generating procedures as part of their usual job. The aim of this document is to review the current literature on the topic, to provide useful recommendations to avoid both healthcare staff exposure to contagion and the delay in the diagnosis and treatment of Head and Neck diseases, in this new phase of COVID-19 pandemic.

Multiparametric CT-based assessment of pretracheal anatomical relationships for safe tracheotomy: A long-forgotten issue revisited

OBJECTIVES

To assess the anatomical relationships and variations in the pretracheal space and to guide tracheotomy procedures in a safe manner with image-based evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on unirradiated patients requiring elective tracheotomies. Preoperative contrast-enhanced CT (CECT)/CT venography (CTV) was applied for an anatomical evaluation of the pretracheal region. Vascular morphologies were compared for three vessels: the anterior jugular vein (AJV), the innominate artery (IA) and the inferior thyroid vascular plexus (ITVP). The relationships between the thyroid isthmus and the 2nd-4th tracheal rings were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were identified, most of whom (n = 110, 91.7%) had head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Patients with recognizable AJVs (n = 118) were divided into 3 groups: single-branch (n = 11, 9.2%), double-branch (n = 105, 87.5%), and multibranch (n = 2, 1.7%). In addition, IAs were categorized as low-bifurcation (n = 51, 42.5%), high-bifurcation (n = 40, 33.3%), platform (n = 27, 22.5%) and variant types (n = 2, 1.7%). Within the platform types, high-lying IAs (n = 15, 8.3%) might have interfered with the standard tracheal incisions due to possible IA-tracheal overlay. This interference was also related to the height of intraoperative tracheal incisions (r_n = 0.364, P = 0.001). Within ITVPs, independent-trunk types were found in 71 cases (59.2%), while common-trunk types were found in 45 (37.5%). In addition, a low thyroid isthmus (suprasternal-isthmus distance <3 cm) was found in 83 cases (69.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

CT image-based evidence can prepare junior practitioners with important pretracheal anatomical information, thereby facilitating safer tracheotomy procedures. Our results shed light on vascular relationships for emergent tracheotomy.

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.

Tracheostomy in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With SARS-CoV-2-ARDS: Focus on Tracheomalacia

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic increased the number of patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation, either through an endotracheal tube or through a tracheostomy. Tracheomalacia is a rare but potentially severe complication of mechanical ventilation, which can significantly complicate the weaning process. The aim of this study was to describe the strategies of airway management in mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2, the incidence of severe tracheomalacia, and investigate the factors associated with its occurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was performed in an Italian teaching hospital. All adult subjects admitted to the ICU between February 24, 2020, and June 30, 2020, treated with invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2 were included. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission, whereas information regarding airway management was collected daily.

RESULTS

A total of 151 subjects were included in the study. On admission, ARDS severity was mild in 21%, moderate in 62%, and severe in 17% of the cases, with an overall mortality of 40%. A tracheostomy was performed in 73 (48%), open surgical technique in 54 (74%), and percutaneous Ciaglia technique in 19 (26%). Subjects who had a tracheostomy performed had, compared to the other subjects, a longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer ICU and hospital stay. Tracheomalacia was diagnosed in 8 (5%). The factors associated with tracheomalacia were female sex, obesity, and tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, approximately 50% of subjects with ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 were tracheostomized. Tracheostomized subjects had a longer ICU and hospital stay. In our population, 5% were diagnosed with tracheomalacia. This percentage is 10 times higher than what is reported in available literature, and the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood.

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.

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.