Early percutaneous tracheostomy for patients with COVID-19

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: retrospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a great number of patients required Mechanical Ventilation (MV). Tracheostomy is the preferred procedure when difficult weaning is presented. Surgical techniques available for performing tracheostomy are open and percutaneous, with contradictory reports on the right choice. This paper aims to describe the clinical results after performing a tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19, regarding both surgical techniques.

METHODS

An observational, analytical study of a retrospective cohort was designed. All patients admitted to the Hospital Universitario Mayor Méderi, between March 2020 and April 2021 who presented COVID-19 requiring MV and who underwent tracheostomy were reviewed. Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy groups were compared and the primary outcome evaluated was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included in the final analysis. The median age was 66.0 (IQR: 57.2 - 72.0) years old and 77 (68.14%) were male. Open tracheostomy was performed in 64.6% (n = 73) of the patients and percutaneous tracheostomy in 35.4% (n = 40) with an in-hospital mortality of 65.7% (n = 48) and 25% (n = 10), respectively (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, open tracheostomy technique [OR 9.45 (95% CI 3.20-27.92)], older age [OR 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09)] and APACHE II score [OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.19)] were identified as independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Late tracheostomy (after 14 days) [OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.09-1.02)] and tracheostomy day PaO2/FiO2 [OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.19)] were not associated to in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous tracheostomy was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality and should be considered the first option to perform this type of surgery in patients with COVID-19 in extended MV or difficulty weaning.

Tracheostomy insertion in COVID-19: insertion practice and factors leading to unplanned tube exchange

Background

Tracheostomy insertion in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents unique challenges. Patients frequently have high ventilatory requirements, and as an aerosol generating procedure, tracheostomy insertion creates the potential for staff transmission. Problems with tracheostomies contribute to morbidity and mortality, and tracheostomy changes may increase risks of staff transmission. We sought to quantify the incidence of clinically necessitated tracheostomy changes, establish the indications for change and investigate the incidence of staff transmission.

Methods

We conducted a single institution, retrospective, observational cohort study of all intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 who had a tracheostomy between March 2020 and April 2021. The institution is a large tertiary referral centre in Ireland.

Results

Forty-three patients had a tracheostomy during the study period. All were a Shiley™ Flexible Adult Taperguard or Shiley™ XLT Tracheostomy. 14 patients (33%) required a tracheostomy change, with the majority (57%) involving a change from a standard size to an extended length tracheostomy. Persistent leak was the most common indication for change (71.6%). Other indications included patient-ventilator dyssynchrony, persistent cough and accidental decannulation. No staff transmission of COVID-19 occurred during this study.

Conclusions

The incidence of tracheostomy change was 33%, highlighting the importance of selecting the right tracheostomy for each patient. We discuss how key characteristics of tracheostomies such as type, size, length and inner diameter may impact flow, resistance and work of breathing, leading to unplanned tracheostomy change. No staff transmission occurred arising from tracheostomy insertion, adding to increasing evidence that tracheostomy insertion in COVID-19 appears safe with adherence to guidelines describing the correct use of personal protective equipment.

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.

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.

Tracheostomy in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients and follow-up: A parisian bicentric retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18th, 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications.

RESULTS

Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients' characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12-22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the "early" group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the "late" group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22-41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15-34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12-19] versus 35 [25-47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16-28] versus 54 [35-72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14-20] and 35 [27-43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34-81] versus 92 [61-118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11-38] versus 45 [22-71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.

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.

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

Objective

Invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) potentially benefit from tracheostomy. The aim of this study was to determine the practice of tracheostomy during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands, to ascertain whether timing of tracheostomy had an association with outcome, and to identify factors that had an association with timing.

Methods

Secondary analysis of the ‘PRactice of VENTilation in COVID–19’ (PRoVENT–COVID) study, a multicenter observational study, conducted from March 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 in 22 Dutch intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were timing of tracheostomy, duration of ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, and factors associated with timing.

Results

Of 1023 patients, 189 patients (18.5%) received a tracheostomy at median 21 [17 to 28] days from start of ventilation. Timing was similar before and after online publication of an amendment to the Dutch national guidelines on tracheostomy focusing on COVID–19 patients (21 [17–28] vs. 21 [17–26] days). Tracheostomy performed ≤ 21 days was independently associated with shorter duration of ventilation (median 26 [21 to 32] vs. 40 [34 to 47] days) and higher mortality in ICU (22.1% vs. 10.2%), hospital (26.1% vs. 11.9%) and at day 90 (27.6% vs. 14.6%). There were no patient demographics or ventilation characteristics that had an association with timing of tracheostomy.

Conclusions

Tracheostomy was performed late in COVID–19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands and timing of tracheostomy possibly had an association with outcome. However, prospective studies are needed to further explore these associations. It remains unknown which factors influenced timing of tracheostomy in COVID–19 patients.

Tracheostomy for COVID-19: evolving best practice

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

COVIDTrach: a prospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy in the UK

Objectives

COVIDTrach is a UK multicentre prospective cohort study project that aims to evaluate the outcomes of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation and record the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers involved in the procedure.

Design

Data on patient demographic, clinical history and outcomes were entered prospectively and updated over time via an online database (REDCap). Clinical variables were compared with outcomes, with logistic regression used to develop a model for mortality. Participants recorded whether any operators tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 2 weeks of the procedure.

Setting

UK National Health Service departments involved in treating patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation.

Participants

The cohort comprised 1605 tracheostomy cases from 126 UK hospitals collected between 6 April and 26 August 2020.

Main outcome measures

Mortality following tracheostomy, successful wean from mechanical ventilation and length of time from tracheostomy to wean, discharge from hospital, complications from tracheostomy, reported SARS-CoV-2 infection among operators.

Results

The median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 15 days (IQR 11, 21). 285 (18%) patients died following the procedure. 1229 (93%) of the survivors had been successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation at censoring and 1049 (81%) had been discharged from hospital. Age, inspired oxygen concentration, positive end-expiratory pressure setting, fever, number of days of ventilation before tracheostomy, C reactive protein and the use of anticoagulation and inotropic support independently predicted mortality. Six reports were received of operators testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 2 weeks of the procedure.

Conclusions

Tracheostomy appears to be safe in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and to operators performing the procedure and we identified clinical parameters that are predictive of mortality.

Trial registration number

The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT04572438).

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.

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.

Modified percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19

Background

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at risk of developing hypoxic respiratory failure and often require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Indication and timing to perform tracheostomy is controversial in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This was a single-institution retrospective review of tracheostomies performed on patients admitted for COVID-19 between April 8, 2020 and August 1, 2020 using a modified percutaneous tracheostomy technique to minimize hypoxia and aerosolization.

Results

Twelve tracheostomies were performed for COVID-related respiratory failure. Median patient age was 54 years (range: 36–76) and 9 (75%) were male. Median time to tracheostomy was 17 days (range: 10–27), and 5 (42%) patients had failed attempts at extubation prior to tracheostomy. There were no intraprocedural complications, including hypoxia. Post-tracheostomy bleeding was noted in two patients. Eight (67%) patients have been discharged at the time of this study, and there were four patient deaths unrelated to tracheostomy placement. No healthcare worker transmissions resulted from participating in the tracheostomy procedure.

Conclusions

A modified percutaneous tracheostomy is feasible and can be safely performed in patients infected with COVID-19.

Level of evidence

Level V, case series.