Safety and efficacy of tracheotomy for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan: a case series of 14 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.

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).

Quality tracheotomy care can be maintained for non-COVID patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

To analyze changes in tracheotomy practices at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and determine if quality patient care was maintained.

Methods

This was a single institution retrospective study that included patients undergoing tracheotomy from May 2019 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups, pre-COVID and post-COVID. Only three patients tested positive for COVID-19, and they were excluded from the study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Statistical analyses were performed using 2-tailed independent t tests, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests, Chi-Square tests, and Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

There were 118 patients in the pre-COVID group and 91 patients in the post-COVID group. The main indication for tracheotomy in both groups was prolonged intubation. There were no significant differences in overall length of stay, time to tracheotomy, duration of tracheotomy procedure, or time to initial tracheotomy change between the two groups. Due to protocols implemented at our institution to limit viral transmission, there were significant increases in the percent of tracheotomies performed in the OR (p = .02), and those performed via open technique (p = .04). Additionally, the median time to decannulation significantly decreased in the post-COVID group (p = .02).

Conclusion

Several variables regarding the timing of patient care showed no significant differences between groups which demonstrates that quality patient care was maintained. It is important to note that this data was collected early in the Pandemic, and additional trends may become apparent over time.

Level of evidence

4.

Otolaryngology in the face of A pandemic

Although infrequent, pandemics are serious public health concerns with unpredictable courses. The COVID-19 pandemic began over 2 years ago and is far from over. This pandemic has spread rapidly throughout the world and led to several million deaths, making it commonly compared to the deadly Spanish influenza pandemic. Policy and safety measures are constantly being adapted to reduce transmission rates. The pandemic places stress on all healthcare workers, but especially otolaryngology providers due to their direct contact with airway connected cavities. This puts them at high risk for infection and has impacted inpatient and outpatient otolaryngology care, as well as education, research, and mental health.

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.

Prevalence and Timing of Tracheostomy and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients in Dubai Hospital

Introduction

Coronavirus has caused more than a million deaths as of October 2020. Hospitals consider tracheostomy after the patient is virus negative, usually after 3 weeks. Prevalence and timing of tracheostomy and its impact on survival among COVID patients are unknown.

Methods

A retrospective, single-center study of all patients with COVID-19 ARDS who underwent tracheostomy was conducted. Patients with age <18 and patients treated with ECMO were excluded. Duration of ventilation before tracheostomy was recorded. Clinical variables, outcome variables, and confounding variables were recorded and compared between patients with tracheostomy and without tracheostomy. The aim was to determine prevalence and timing of tracheostomy and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Results

We found that tracheostomies were performed only in 21 out of 196 patients (10.8%). Tracheostomies were performed after 3 weeks on average (22.1 ± 7.5 days). Survival was significantly higher in patients who underwent tracheostomy (85.7 vs. 42.5%, p = 0.001). LOSICU was longer for tracheostomy patients than patients without tracheostomy (median [IQR]: 35 [23–47] vs. 15 [9–21], p = 0.001). Patients who underwent tracheostomy had a higher proportion of treatment with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (52 vs. 30%, p = 0.04), more COVID-19 swab testing (6.5 [4.5–8.5] vs. 5 [3–7], p = 0.002), more days on mechanical ventilation (34.5 [24–45] vs. 11 [5.5–16.5], p = 0.001), and more length of stay in the hospital (54 [38–70] vs. 20 [10.5–29.5], p = 0.001). All other factors were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Approximately 29% of patients had possible false-negative testing as their swab became positive after being negative.

Conclusion

Tracheostomy was performed only in 10% of our patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Time to tracheostomy was after 3 weeks on average. Survival was better in patients with tracheostomy, but tracheostomized patients stayed longer in the ICU and hospital and utilized more days of mechanical ventilation and CRRT.

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.