"HYPER-EARLY" Tracheostomy within 48 hours has less Complications and Better Prognosis Compared to Traditional Tracheostomy

A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 tracheostomies: Early versus late tracheostomy

Objectives

To assess the impact of early tracheostomy (ET) versus late tracheostomy (LT) placement on mortality and decannulation rates of COVID patients.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients infected with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy tube placement in an Ochsner-affiliated hospital from March 2020 to May 2022. Patients were identified using the electronic medical record and data was collated using the "Epic SlicerDicer" tool. Descriptive statistics were gathered and compared between patients who underwent ET placement and those who underwent LT placement. Patient demographics, previous medical history, tracheostomy procedural details, arterial blood gases, complications, and outcomes including time to wean from the ventilator, and time to decannulation were recorded.

Results

Two-hundred nineteen patients were included in the study. There were no statistically significant differences in liberation from mechanical ventilation rates between early and LT (62% vs. 55%, p = .19), or in decannulation rates (40% vs. 32%, p = .14). The mean duration of time to liberation from mechanical ventilation for early trach was 13.88 versus 18.17 days for late trach, however, no statistically significant difference was found (p = .12). Similarly, mean duration of time to decannulation was 41.17 days for early versus 47.72 for late trach (p = .15).

Conclusion

Contrary to some studies in the literature, the results presented here suggest ETs are not associated with hastened liberation from mechanical ventilation or increased decannulation rates. Further prospective studies may be warranted in assessing the impact of early versus LT in the COVID patient population.

Level of Evidence

III.

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.