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

Early Deep Sedation Practices Worsened During the Pandemic Among Adult Patients Without COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that patients with COVID-19 were treated with sustained deep sedation during the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether such guideline-discordant care had spillover effects to patients without COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did patterns of early deep sedation change during the pandemic for patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We used electronic health record data from 4,237 patients who were intubated without COVID-19. We compared sedation practices in the first 48 h after intubation across prepandemic (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020), pandemic (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021), and late pandemic (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022) periods.

RESULTS

In the prepandemic period, patients spent an average of 13.0 h deeply sedated in the first 48 h after intubation. This increased 1.9 h (95% CI, 1.0-2.8) during the pandemic period and 2.9 h (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) in the late pandemic period. The proportion of patients that spent over one-half of the first 48 h deeply sedated was 18.9% in the prepandemic period, 22.3% during the pandemic period, and 25.9% during the late pandemic period. Ventilator-free days decreased during the pandemic, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of being alive without mechanical ventilation at 28 days of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95) compared with the prepandemic period. Tracheostomy placement increased during the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). In the medical ICU, early deep sedation increased 2.5 h (95% CI, 0.6-4.4) during the pandemic period and 4.9 h (95% CI, 3.0-6.9) during the late pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period.

INTERPRETATION

We found that among patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19, sedation use increased during the pandemic. In the subsequent year, these practices did not return to prepandemic standards.

Hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study

OBJECTIVE

We determined the prevalences of hyperoxemia and excessive oxygen use, and the epidemiology, ventilation characteristics and outcomes associated with hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of a national, multicentre, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified in the first two days of invasive ventilation as 'hyperoxemic' or 'normoxemic'. The co-primary endpoints were prevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 90 mmHg) and prevalence of excessive oxygen use (FiO2 ≥ 60% while PaO2 > 90 mmHg or SpO2 > 92%). Secondary endpoints included ventilator settings and ventilation parameters, duration of ventilation, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, and at day 28 and 90. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors that may influence endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 851 COVID-19 patients, 225 (26.4%) were classified as hyperoxemic. Excessive oxygen use occurred in 385 (45.2%) patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity was lowest in hyperoxemic patients. Hyperoxemic patients were ventilated with higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), while rescue therapies for hypoxemia were applied more often in normoxemic patients. Neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis were there differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients with regard to any of the clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, hyperoxemia occurred often and so did excessive oxygen use. The main differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients were ARDS severity and use of PEEP. Clinical outcomes were not different between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients.

The impact of delayed tracheostomy on critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study in a chinese tertiary hospital

OBJECTIVES

The timing of tracheostomy for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) is a topic of controversy. Our objective was to determine the most suitable timing for tracheostomy in patients undergoing MV.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

One thousand eight hundred eighty-four hospitalisations received tracheostomy from January 2011 to December 2020 in a Chinese tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Tracheostomy timing was divided into three groups: early tracheostomy (ET), intermediate tracheostomy (IMT), and late tracheostomy (LT), based on the duration from tracheal intubation to tracheostomy. We established two criteria to classify the timing of tracheostomy for data analysis: Criteria I (ET ≤ 5 days, 5 days < IMT ≤ 10 days, LT > 10 days) and Criteria II (ET ≤ 7 days, 7 days < IMT ≤ 14 days, LT > 14 days). Parameters such as length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and duration of MV were used to evaluate outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes were categorized as good prognosis, poor prognosis, and death based on the manner of hospital discharge. Student's t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were employed as appropriate to assess differences in demographic data and individual characteristics among the ET, IMT, and LT groups. Univariate Cox regression model and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model were utilized to determine whether delaying tracheostomy would increase the risk of death.

RESULTS

In both of two criterion, patients with delayed tracheostomies had longer hospital stays (p < 0.001), ICU stays (p < 0.001), total time receiving MV (p < 0.001), time receiving MV before tracheostomy (p < 0.001), time receiving MV after tracheostomy (p < 0.001), and sedation durations. Similar results were also found in sub-population diagnosed as trauma, neurogenic or digestive disorders. Multinomial Logistic regression identified LT was independently associated with poor prognosis, whereas ET conferred no clinical benefits compared with IMT.

CONCLUSIONS

In a mixed ICU population, delayed tracheostomy prolonged ICU and hospital stays, sedation durations, and time receiving MV. Multinomial logistic regression analysis identified delayed tracheostomies as independently correlated with worse outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100043905. Registered 05 March 2021. http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx.

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.

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.

TTCOV19: timing of tracheotomy in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients: a multicentre, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Critically ill COVID-19 patients may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome and the need for respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. Previous observational studies have suggested early tracheotomy to be advantageous. The aim of this parallel, multicentre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the optimal timing of tracheotomy.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2-infected patients within the Region Västra Götaland of Sweden who needed intubation and mechanical respiratory support were included and randomly assigned to early tracheotomy (≤ 7 days after intubation) or late tracheotomy (≥ 10 days after intubation). The primary objective was to compare the total number of mechanical ventilation days between the groups.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients (mean age 65 years, 79% males) were included. Seventy-two patients were assigned to early tracheotomy, and 78 were assigned to late tracheotomy. One hundred two patients (68%) underwent tracheotomy of whom sixty-one underwent tracheotomy according to the protocol. The overall median number of days in mechanical ventilation was 18 (IQR 9; 28), but no significant difference was found between the two treatment regimens in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference: - 1.5 days (95% CI - 5.7 to 2.8); p = 0.5). A significantly reduced number of mechanical ventilation days was found in the early tracheotomy group during the per-protocol analysis (between-group difference: - 8.0 days (95% CI - 13.8 to - 2.27); p = 0.0064). The overall correlation between the timing of tracheotomy and days of mechanical ventilation was significant (Spearman's correlation: 0.39, p < 0.0001). The total death rate during intensive care was 32.7%, but no significant differences were found between the groups regarding survival, complications or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential superiority of early tracheotomy when compared to late tracheotomy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not confirmed by the present randomized controlled trial but is a strategy that should be considered in selected cases where the need for MV for more than 14 days cannot be ruled out. Trial registration NCT04412356 , registered 05/24/2020.