Is Timing of Tracheotomy a Factor Influencing the Clinical Course in COVID-19 Patients?

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.

Timing of tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients

According to the World Health Organization as of September 16, 2021, there have been over 226 million documented cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has resulted in more than 4.6 million deaths and approximately 14% develop a more severe disease that requires respiratory assistance such as intubation. Early tracheostomy is recommended for patients that are expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation; however, supporting data has not yet been provided for early tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to explore established guidelines for performing tracheostomies in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Factors considered were patient outcomes such as mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, intensive care unit length of stay, complications associated with procedures, and risks to healthcare providers that performed tracheostomies. Various observational studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were collected through a PubMed Database search. Additional sources were found through Google. The search was refined to publications in English and between the years of 2003 and 2021. The keywords used were “Coronavirus” and/or “guidelines'' and/or “tracheostomy” and/or “intensive care”. Twenty-three studies were retained. Due to the complex presentation of the respiratory virus COVID-19, previously established guidelines for tracheostomies had to be reevaluated to determine if these guidelines were still applicable to these critically ill ventilated patients. More specifically, medical guidelines state benefits to early tracheostomies in critically ill ventilated non-COVID-19 patients. However, after having conducted this review, the assumptions about the benefits of early tracheostomies in critically ill ventilated patients may not be appropriate for COVID-19 patients.

The Efficacy of Tracheotomy for Covid-19 Pneumonia: Impacts on Survival and Prognostic Factors

The role of tracheotomy during the pandemic remains to be determined for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. We evaluated the effect of tracheotomy on prognostic markers and assessed 4 weeks survival in terms of clinical and biochemical characteristics of patients and time and type (open or percutaneous) of the operation. We performed a retrospective study considering ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and tracheotomy, between May 30 and December 31, 2020. Four weeks survival postoperatively and alteration of biochemical markers were analyzed. 24 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and tracheotomy, included in this study. Median age was 68.3 years (range 38-90) with male:female ratio 16:8. All the patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia considering clinical symptoms and COVID-19 specific CT findings. RT-PCR test results were positive in 58.3%. Prognostic markers were found to be increased postoperatively with both types of surgery (75%). 1 week and 4 weeks survival after the operation was 66.7% and 45.8%, respectively. 4 weeks survival was decreased significantly with NLR ≥ 10 compared to NLR < 10 (15.3-81.8%). Nevertheless, 4 weeks survival differences between males and females (12.5% and 62.5%) and between age ≤ 50 and > 50 (100% and 35%) were also found to be statistically significant. Patients with younger age, male gender, and NLR < 10, were found to have longer survival after tracheotomy. Positive PCR results and preoperative critically increased biochemical markers were related to decreased survival. The number of comorbidities, time and type of surgery, and postoperative increment of prognostic markers seemed not to affect survival.

Early or late tracheotomy in patients after multiple organ trauma

The analysis of the study group of 124 patients revealed a statistically significant shortening of mechanical ventilation requirement period in patients in whom tracheotomy had been performed before hospitalization day 10 (G1). The average length of mechanical ventilation was shorter by 20.3 days in G1 as compared to G2. On average, the duration of ICU stay was shorter by 39.4 days in G1 as compared to G2. Total hospitalization time was also significantly shorter in this group of patients (G1). The overall length of hospital stay for patients in whom tracheotomy had been performed prior to hospitalization day 10 was on average 43.1 days shorter as compared to patients in whom the procedure had been performed at a later date. Tab. I. provides the comparison of the results obtained in both study groups. Statistically significant differences (p &lt; 0.05) were demonstrated between G1 and G2 regarding the length of the mechanical ventilation, the length of ICU stay, and length of hospitalization. null null No statistically significant differences were observed in mortality rates between the study groups (Fig. 1.) (P = 0.256). The mortality rate in early tracheotomy group (G1) was lower and amounted to 2%. In patients in whom tracheotomy was performed on day 10 or later (G2), the mortality rate was slightly higher and amounted to 9%. In some patients, initiation of treatment was required due to pneumonia developing as a complication in mechanically ventilated patients and referred to as ventilator-associated pneumonia. This complication developed in 6 patients in G1 and 26 patients in G2. The study assessed the relationship between the occurrence of this complication and the timing of tracheotomy. Pneumonia was significantly more frequent in patients in whom tracheotomy had been performed on hospitalization day 10 or later (P = 0.011). null null The comparison of results is presented in Tab. II.&lt;/br&gt; &lt;/br&gt;Another analyzed aspect of the study consisted in the results obtained by the patients in the baseline evaluation of the level of consciousness as assessed using the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Data were checked for potential correlation between the GCS scores and the timing of the tracheotomy and the lengths of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization. Correlation between GCS scores and the duration of stay within the ICU was demonstrated with a statistically significant correlation coefficient (Spearman's rank coefficient in the range of -0.4 to -0.2). &lt;/br&gt; &lt;/br&gt;ICU stay and total hospitalization lengths were shorter in patients with higher baseline GCS scores compared to patients with lower baseline GCS scores. The results are illustrated graphically (Fig. 2., 3.).