Surgical Tracheostomies in COVID-19 Patients: Indications, Technique, and Results in a Second-Level Spanish Hospital

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.

Utility of Early Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Covid-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

COVID 19 has proven itself to be an agent of cataclysm and caused an uproar worldwide due to consistent strain on the finite resources available to tackle the situation. With the rapidly mutating viral nature, resultant disease is becoming more severe over time, causing significant numbers of critical cases needing invasive ventilatory support. Available literature dictates that tracheostomy might reduce the stress over healthcare infrastructure. Our systematic review is aimed towards understanding the influence of tracheostomy timing, over the course of the illness, by analyzing the relevant literature, thus aiding in decision making while managing critical COVID 19 patients. With predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, PubMed data was explored using search terms like 'timing', 'tracheotomy'/'tracheostomy' and 'COVID'/'COVID-19'/'SARS CoV2' and 26 articles were finalised for formal review. 26 studies (3527 patients) were systematically reviewed. 60.3% and 39.5% patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy and open surgical tracheostomy respectively. We report 7.62%, 21.3%, 56% and 46.53% as approximate estimates, of complication rate, mortality rate, rate of mechanical ventilation weaning and rate of decannulation following tracheostomy in COVID 19 patients, respectively taking into account underestimation of the data. Provided that appropriate preventive measures and safety guidelines are strictly followed, moderately early tracheostomy (between 10 and 14 days of intubation) can prove quite efficacious in management of critical COVID 19 patients. Also, early tracheostomy was associated with early weaning and decannulation, thus reducing the enormous competition for intensive care unit beds.

Cricotracheostomy for patients with severe COVID-19: A case control study

Background

Tracheostomy is an important procedure for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Older age and obesity have been reported to be associated with the risk of severe COVID-19 and prolonged intubation, and anticoagulants are often administered in patients with severe COVID-19; these factors are also related to a higher risk of tracheostomy. Cricotracheostomy, a modified procedure for opening the airway through intentional partial cricoid cartilage resection, was recently reported to be useful in cases with low-lying larynx, obesity, stiff neck, and bleeding tendency. Here, we investigated the usefulness and safety of cricotracheostomy for severe COVID-19 patients.

Materials and methods

Fifteen patients with severe COVID-19 who underwent cricotracheostomy between January 2021 and April 2022 with a follow-up period of ≥ 14 days were included in this study. Forty patients with respiratory failure not related to COVID-19 who underwent traditional tracheostomy between January 2015 and April 2022 comprised the control group. Data were collected from medical records and comprised age, sex, body mass index, interval from intubation to tracheostomy, use of anticoagulants, complications of tracheostomy, and decannulation.

Results

Age, sex, and days from intubation to tracheostomy were not significantly different between the COVID-19/cricotracheostomy and control/traditional tracheostomy groups. Body mass index was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group than that in the control group (P = 0.02). The rate of use of anticoagulants was significantly higher in the COVID-19 group compared with the control group (P < 0.01). Peri-operative bleeding, subcutaneous emphysema, and stomal infection rates were not different between the groups, while stomal granulation was significantly less in the COVID-19 group (P = 0.04).

Conclusions

These results suggest that cricotracheostomy is a safe procedure in patients with severe COVID-19.

Outcome of Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients

Introduction

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic 2019, quite a few patients became critical and needed ICU admission with ventilator assistance. Tracheostomy, which was initially performed late during the course of patient on ventilator, has now been considered a procedure that can be performed relatively early as this leads to early weaning of patients and overcomes the shortage of critical beds.

Objective

This study aims to focus on the outcomes of tracheotomised COVID-19 patients in terms of survival and any tracheostomy related morbidity.

Methods

A prospective study was performed on COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy at this tertiary care teaching hospital, which also was a dedicated centre for treating COVID-19 patients. The duration of this study was from April 2020 to September 2021. Following tracheostomy, all patients were followed up regularly and clinical changes were recorded. Points that were specifically noted were timing of the tracheostomy, change in ventilator settings, tracheostomy related complications, requirement of oxygen, days needed to wean the patient, decanulation, and, if death, the cause of death.

Results

A total of 136 surgical open tracheostomies were performed on COVID-19 patients over the study period. The mean duration of intubation (timing of tracheostomy) was 12 days. A total of 73 out of 136 (53.6%) patients survived. 51 patients (37.5%) got decannulated during the course of the hospital stay. 9 patients were decanulated during the follow up visits and 13 patients were lost to follow up. 63 out of 136 (46.3%) patients died due to COVID pneumonia. Most of the patients who died had gone into multi-organ failure. Air leak syndromes (pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum) were common findings. 10 patients already had surgical emphysema before taking up for tracheostomy and 6 developed 2-3 days after tracheostomy. The most common complication was bleeding, which was seen in 28 out of 136 patients. The Median weaning of period of patients who survived was 5 days.

Conclusion

Performing tracheostomy early in COVID-19 patients helps in early weaning of the patient from the ventilator and makes nursing care easier and increases the availability of ICU beds. The mortality rate was 46% amongst the 136 tracheostomies done in COVID-19 patients. Local site bleeding was the most common complication and surgical emphysema was also seen more than routine tracheostomies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-022-03248-1.

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.

Specialized Weaning Unit in the Trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 ARDS: Influence of Limb Muscle Strength on Decannulation and Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 may require tracheostomy and transfer to a weaning center. To date, data on the outcome of these patients are scarce. The objectives of this study were to determine the factors associated with time to decannulation and limb-muscle strength recovery.

METHODS

This was an observational retrospective study of subjects with COVID-19-related ARDS requiring tracheostomy after prolonged ventilation, who were subsequently transferred to a weaning center from April 4, 2020-May 30, 2020.

RESULTS

Forty-three subjects were included. Median age (interquartile range) was 61 (48-66) y; 81% were men, and median body mass index (BMI) was 30 (26-35) kg/m². Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 19 (12-27) d of mechanical ventilation, and the median ICU length of stay prior to transfer to the weaning center was 30 (21-46) d. On admission to the weaning center, the median Medical Research Council (MRC) score was 36 (27-44). Time to decannulation was 9 (7-18) d after admission to the weaning center. The only factor independently associated with early decannulation was the MRC score on admission to the weaning center (odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI 1.06-1.31], P = .005). Two factors were independently associated with MRC gain ≥ 10: BMI (odds ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.76-0.99], P = .045) and MRC on admission (odds ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.82-0.98], P = .03. Three months after admission to the weaning center, 40 subjects (93%) were weaned from mechanical ventilation and 36 (84%) had returned home.

CONCLUSIONS

MRC score at weaning center admission predicted both early decannulation and limb-muscle strength recovery.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to healthcare workers performing tracheostomies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed.

METHODS

This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

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.

Tracheostomy in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With SARS-CoV-2-ARDS: Focus on Tracheomalacia

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic increased the number of patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation, either through an endotracheal tube or through a tracheostomy. Tracheomalacia is a rare but potentially severe complication of mechanical ventilation, which can significantly complicate the weaning process. The aim of this study was to describe the strategies of airway management in mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2, the incidence of severe tracheomalacia, and investigate the factors associated with its occurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study was performed in an Italian teaching hospital. All adult subjects admitted to the ICU between February 24, 2020, and June 30, 2020, treated with invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2 were included. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission, whereas information regarding airway management was collected daily.

RESULTS

A total of 151 subjects were included in the study. On admission, ARDS severity was mild in 21%, moderate in 62%, and severe in 17% of the cases, with an overall mortality of 40%. A tracheostomy was performed in 73 (48%), open surgical technique in 54 (74%), and percutaneous Ciaglia technique in 19 (26%). Subjects who had a tracheostomy performed had, compared to the other subjects, a longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer ICU and hospital stay. Tracheomalacia was diagnosed in 8 (5%). The factors associated with tracheomalacia were female sex, obesity, and tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, approximately 50% of subjects with ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 were tracheostomized. Tracheostomized subjects had a longer ICU and hospital stay. In our population, 5% were diagnosed with tracheomalacia. This percentage is 10 times higher than what is reported in available literature, and the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood.

Tracheostomy Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients in a Low Resource Setting

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 predominately affects safety net hospitals. Tracheostomies improve outcomes and decrease length of stay for COVID-19 patients. Our objectives are to determine if (1) COVID-19 tracheostomies have similar complication and mortality rates as non-COVID-19 tracheostomies and (2) to determine the effectiveness of our tracheostomy protocol at a safety net hospital.

METHODS

Patients who underwent tracheostomy at Los Angeles County Hospital between August 2009 and August 2020 were included. Demographics, SARS-CoV-2 status, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), length of intubation, complication rates, decannulation rates, and 30-day all-cause mortality versus tracheostomy related mortality rates were all collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients with COVID-19 and 130 non-COVID-19 patients underwent tracheostomies. Both groups were predominately male with similar BMI and CCI, though the COVID-19 patients were more likely to be Hispanic and intubated for a longer time (P = .034 and P < .0001, respectively). Both groups also had similar, low intraoperative complications at 2% to 3% and comparable long-term post-operative complications. However, COVID-19 patients had more perioperative complications within 7 days of surgery (P < .01). Specifically, they were more likely to have perioperative bleeding at their tracheostomy sites (P = .03) and long-term post-operative mucus plugging (P < .01). However, both groups had similar 30-day mortality rates. There were no incidences of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare workers.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 tracheostomies are safe for patients and healthcare workers. Careful attention should be paid to suctioning to prevent mucus plugging.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Tracheotomy in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Weaning, Decannulation, and Survival

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the cumulative incidences of decannulation and mechanical ventilation weaning in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who have undergone a tracheotomy. Weighted average mean times to tracheotomy, to decannulation, and to death were calculated from reported or approximated means.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were screened by 3 investigators independently. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies including patients with COVID-19 who underwent a tracheotomy were identified. Studies without reported mechanical ventilation weaning or decannulation were excluded. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

After identifying 232 unique studies, 18 articles encompassing outcomes for 3234 patients were ultimately included for meta-analysis, with a weighted mean follow-up time of 28.6 ± 6.2 days after tracheotomy. Meta-analysis revealed that 55.0% of tracheotomized patients were weaned successfully from mechanical ventilation (95% CI, 47.4%-62.2%). Approximately 34.9% of patients were decannulated successfully, with a mean decannulation time of 18.6 ± 5.7 days after tracheotomy. The pooled mortality in tracheotomized patients with COVID-19 was 13.1%, with a mean time of death of 13.0 ± 4.0 days following tracheotomy.

CONCLUSION

At the current state of the coronavirus pandemic, over half of patients who have required tracheotomies are being weaned off of mechanical ventilation. While 13.1% patients have died prior to decannulation, over a third of all tracheotomized patients with COVID-19 reported in the literature have undergone successful decannulation.

Tracheostomy for COVID-19 Respiratory Failure: Multidisciplinary, Multicenter Data on Timing, Technique, and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Tracheostomy has an essential role in managing COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. However, limited data are available on how tracheostomy affects COVID-19 outcomes, and uncertainty surrounding risk of infectious transmission has led to divergent recommendations and practices.

METHODS

It is a multicenter, retrospective study; data were collected on all tracheostomies performed in COVID-19 patients at 7 hospitals in 5 tertiary academic medical systems from February 1, 2020 to September 4, 2020.

RESULT

Tracheotomy was performed in 118 patients with median time from intubation to tracheostomy of 22 days (Q1-Q3: 18-25). All tracheostomies were performed employing measures to minimize aerosol generation, 78.0% by percutaneous technique, and 95.8% at bedside in negative pressure rooms. Seventy-eight (66.1%) patients were weaned from the ventilator and 18 (15.3%) patients died from causes unrelated to tracheostomy. No major procedural complications occurred. Early tracheostomy (≤14 days) was associated with decreased ventilator days; median ventilator days (Q1-Q3) among patients weaned from the ventilator in the early, middle and late groups were 21 (21-31), 34 (26.5-42), and 37 (32-41) days, respectively with P = 0.030. Compared to surgical tracheostomy, percutaneous technique was associated with faster weaning for patients weaned off the ventilator [median (Q1-Q3): 34 (29-39) vs 39 (34-51) days, P = 0.038]; decreased ventilator-associated pneumonia (58.7% vs 80.8%, P = 0.039); and among patients who were discharged, shorter intensive care unit duration [median (Q1-Q3): 33 (27-42) vs 47 (33-64) days, P = 0.009]; and shorter hospital length of stay [median (Q1-Q3): 46 (33-59) vs 59.5 (48-80) days, P = 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Early, percutaneous tracheostomy was associated with improved outcomes compared to surgical tracheostomy in a multi-institutional series of ventilated patients with COVID-19.

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.

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.

Tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: predictors and clinical features

BACKGROUND

Around 20% of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 need mechanical ventilation (MV). MV may be prolonged, thus warranting tracheostomy.

METHODS

Observational cohort study enrolling patients admitted due to COVID-19. Demographic and clinical data at hospital and ICU admission were collected. The primary endpoint was to identify parameters associated with a need for tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were to analyze the clinical course of patients who needed tracheostomy.

RESULTS

118 patients were enrolled; 37 patients (31.5%) were transferred to ICU, of which 11 (29.72%) needed a tracheostomy due to prolonged MV. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.92, p 0.015) was the only variable found to be associated with increased risk of the need for tracheostomy, with a cut-off point of 4.5 (sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.73, positive predictive value 0.57 and negative predictive value 0.85). The main complications were nosocomial infection (100%), supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (45.5%), agitation (54.5%), pulmonary thromboembolism (9.1%) and depression (9.1%). All patients presented with hypoalbuminemia and significant critical illness polyneuropathy.

CONCLUSION

SOFA at ICU admission is associated with an increased risk of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19. Moreover, they present clinical features similar to those with chronic critical illness and suffer SARS-CoV-2-related complications.

Tracheostomy outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tracheostomy is a standard surgical procedure that is used in critically ill patients who require sustained mechanical ventilation. In this article, we review the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who underwent tracheostomy. We searched for relevant articles on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, up to April 20, 2021. This meta- analysis examines ventilation liberation, decannulation, and hospital mortality rates in COVID-19 patients who have undergone tracheostomy. Two investigators evaluated the articles, and the differences of opinion were settled by consensus with a third author. A total of 4366 patients were included in 47 related articles for this meta-analysis. After data pooling, the proportions of ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were found to be 48% (95% CI: 31-64), 42% (95% CI: 17-69) and 18% (95% CI: 9-28) respectively. The Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index values for ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were 4.28, 1.32 and 0.69. No transmission of the disease attributable to participating in tracheostomy procedures was reported in most of the included articles.