Tracheostomy timing and clinical outcomes in ventilated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of delayed tracheostomy on critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study in a chinese tertiary hospital

OBJECTIVES

The timing of tracheostomy for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) is a topic of controversy. Our objective was to determine the most suitable timing for tracheostomy in patients undergoing MV.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

One thousand eight hundred eighty-four hospitalisations received tracheostomy from January 2011 to December 2020 in a Chinese tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Tracheostomy timing was divided into three groups: early tracheostomy (ET), intermediate tracheostomy (IMT), and late tracheostomy (LT), based on the duration from tracheal intubation to tracheostomy. We established two criteria to classify the timing of tracheostomy for data analysis: Criteria I (ET ≤ 5 days, 5 days < IMT ≤ 10 days, LT > 10 days) and Criteria II (ET ≤ 7 days, 7 days < IMT ≤ 14 days, LT > 14 days). Parameters such as length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and duration of MV were used to evaluate outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes were categorized as good prognosis, poor prognosis, and death based on the manner of hospital discharge. Student's t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were employed as appropriate to assess differences in demographic data and individual characteristics among the ET, IMT, and LT groups. Univariate Cox regression model and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model were utilized to determine whether delaying tracheostomy would increase the risk of death.

RESULTS

In both of two criterion, patients with delayed tracheostomies had longer hospital stays (p < 0.001), ICU stays (p < 0.001), total time receiving MV (p < 0.001), time receiving MV before tracheostomy (p < 0.001), time receiving MV after tracheostomy (p < 0.001), and sedation durations. Similar results were also found in sub-population diagnosed as trauma, neurogenic or digestive disorders. Multinomial Logistic regression identified LT was independently associated with poor prognosis, whereas ET conferred no clinical benefits compared with IMT.

CONCLUSIONS

In a mixed ICU population, delayed tracheostomy prolonged ICU and hospital stays, sedation durations, and time receiving MV. Multinomial logistic regression analysis identified delayed tracheostomies as independently correlated with worse outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100043905. Registered 05 March 2021. http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx.

Impact of Tracheostomy on COVID-19 ICU Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Analysis

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the development of novel medical interventions, including tracheostomy, a surgical procedure for a direct airway. This study investigates the intricacies of managing critically ill patients in the ICU, focusing on its debated utility in the global crisis. Methods The study assessed the impact of tracheostomy on COVID-19 patients at Al-Ahsa Hospital, Saudi Arabia, using a retrospective cohort design and data from electronic health records and databases. It aimed to provide insights into treatment outcomes and practices. Results The findings of this study shed light on the significant impact of tracheostomy on the course of ICU treatment for COVID-19 patients. Total number of participants were 1389. The study cohort consisted of predominantly non-pregnant individuals with an average body mass index reflective of the regional population. Among the COVID-19 patients, only a small percentage, 63 (4.5%), required tracheostomy, while the majority, 1326 (95.5%), did not undergo this procedure. Analysis of ICU outcomes revealed that a substantial proportion of patients, 223 (16.1%), achieved total cure, while the remaining patients did not. After a 28-day ICU stay, the majority of individuals, 1287 (92.7%), were discharged, while a smaller percentage remained in the ICU, with 77 (5.5%) still requiring mechanical ventilation. Notably, patients who underwent tracheostomy had a significantly longer ICU stay compared to those who did not, with an average of 59 days versus 19 days, respectively. Furthermore, the study found that tracheostomy did not significantly impact ICU discharge outcomes, including death, discharge home, and transfer to another facility. However, it did influence hospital discharge outcomes, with lower mortality rates and a higher rate of transfer to another facility among patients who underwent tracheostomy. These results provide valuable insights into the management and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU, particularly in relation to the use of tracheostomy as a treatment intervention. Conclusion The study highlights the dual benefits of tracheostomy in COVID-19 care, extending hospital stays but not increasing ICU discharge rates, emphasizing the need for tailored clinical strategies.

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.

Fibrotic-Like Pulmonary Radiographic Patterns Are Not Associated With Adverse Outcomes in COVID-19 Chronic Critical Illness

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary fibrosis is a feared complication of COVID-19. To characterize the risks and outcomes associated with fibrotic-like radiographic abnormalities in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and chronic critical illness.

DESIGN

Single-center prospective cohort study.

SETTING

We examined chest CT scans performed between ICU discharge and 30 days after hospital discharge using established methods to quantify nonfibrotic and fibrotic-like patterns.

PATIENTS

Adults hospitalized with COVID-19-related ARDS and chronic critical illness (> 21 d of mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, and survival to ICU discharge) between March 2020 and May 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We tested associations of fibrotic-like patterns with clinical characteristics and biomarkers, and with time to mechanical ventilator liberation and 6-month survival, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and COVID-19 therapies. A total of 141 of 616 adults (23%) with COVID-19-related ARDS developed chronic critical illness, and 64 of 141 (46%) had a chest CT a median (interquartile range) 66 days (42-82 d) after intubation. Fifty-five percent had fibrotic-like patterns characterized by reticulations and/or traction bronchiectasis. In adjusted analyses, interleukin-6 level on the day of intubation was associated with fibrotic-like patterns (odds ratio, 4.40 per quartile change; 95% CI, 1.90-10.1 per quartile change). Other inflammatory biomarkers, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, age, tidal volume, driving pressure, and ventilator days were not. Fibrotic-like patterns were not associated with longer time to mechanical ventilator liberation or worse 6-month survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of adults with COVID-19-associated chronic critical illness have fibrotic-like patterns that are associated with higher interleukin-6 levels at intubation. Fibrotic-like patterns are not associated with longer time to liberation from mechanical ventilation or worse 6-month survival.

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.

Association between tracheostomy and survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for more than 14 days: A multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Tracheostomy is a common procedure with potential prognostic advantages for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). Early recommendations for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggested delayed or limited tracheostomy considering the risk for viral transmission to clinicians. However, updated guidelines for tracheostomy with appropriate personal protective equipment have revised its indications. This study aimed to evaluate the association between tracheostomy and prognosis in patients with COVID-19 requiring PMV.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using data from the nationwide Japanese Intensive Care PAtient Database. We included adult patients aged ≥16 years who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to COVID-19 and who required PMV (for >14 days or until performance of tracheostomy). The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and the association between implementation of tracheostomy and patient prognosis was assessed using weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to address confounders.

RESULTS

Between January 2020 and February 2021, 453 patients with COVID-19 were observed. Data from 109 patients who required PMV were analyzed: 66 (60.6%) underwent tracheostomy and 38 (34.9%) died. After adjusting for potential confounders using IPTW, tracheostomy implementation was found to significantly reduce hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.316, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.163-0.612). Patients who underwent tracheostomy had a similarly decreased ICU and 28-day mortality (HR: 0.269, 95% CI: 0.124-0.581; HR 0.281, 95% CI: 0.094-0.839, respectively). A sensitivity analysis using different definitions of PMV duration consistently showed reduced mortality in patients who underwent tracheostomy.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of tracheostomy was associated with favorable patient prognosis among patients with COVID-19 requiring PMV. Our findings support proactive tracheostomy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation for >14 days.

Updates in percutaneous tracheostomy and gastrostomy: should we strive for combined placement during one procedure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Percutaneous tracheostomy and gastrostomy are minimally invasive procedures among the most common performed in intensive care units. Practices across centres vary considerably, and questions remain about the optimal timing, performance and postoperative care related to these procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a reevaluation of the practice of percutaneous tracheostomy and gastrostomy in the ICU. Combined percutaneous tracheostomy and gastrostomy at the bedside has potential benefits, including improved nutrition, decreased exposure to anaesthetics, decreased patient transport and decreased hospital costs. Percutaneous ultrasound gastrostomy is a novel technique that eliminates the need for an endoscope that may allow intensivists to perform gastrostomy at the bedside.

SUMMARY

Multidisciplinary care is essential to the follow up of critically ill patients receiving tracheostomy and gastrostomy. Combined tracheostomy and gastrostomy has numerous potential benefits to patients and hospital systems. Interventional pulmonologists are uniquely qualified to perform both procedures and serve on a tracheostomy and gastrostomy team.

Percutaneous tracheostomy in the ICU: a review of the literature and recent updates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following article summarizes the current available knowledge regarding tracheostomy techniques, indications, contraindications, procedure timing, use of assisted technologies and tracheostomy feasibility and safety in high-risk populations. In light of the ongoing corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, a focus was placed on tracheostomy in this unique patient group.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy (PDT) is commonly used in the ICU setting. It has been shown to be well tolerated and feasible in a diverse patient population including those regarded to be at high risk such as the obese, coagulopathic and acute respiratory failure patient. This patient profile presented itself frequently in the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed studies showed that PDT is well tolerated in COVID-19 ICU patients leading to reduced ICU length of stay (LOS), decrease in ventilator-associated pneumonia rate (VAP) and reduced duration on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Despite initial concerns, virus transmission from patient to healthcare provider (HCP) was shown to be negligible when proper precautions are taken.

SUMMARY

Bedside PDT in the ICU is a well tolerated procedure having the potential to benefit both the individual patient as well as to improve resource utilization of the healthcare system.

[Weaning from invasive ventilation : Challenges in the clinical routine]

Modern intensive care medicine is caught between the conflicting demands of an efficient but also increasingly more technical intensive care treatment with numerous therapeutic options and, at the same time, an ageing society with increasing morbidity. This is reflected, among other things, in an increasing number of ventilated patients in intensive care units and an increasing proportion of patients for whom ventilation cannot easily be discontinued. Weaning from a ventilator, which can account for more than 50% of the total ventilation time, therefore plays a central role in this process. This main topic article presents the need for strategically wise and holistic actions to minimize the consequences of invasive mechanical ventilation for patients. An attempt is made to shed more light on individual aspects of the ventilation weaning process with high relevance for clinical practice. Especially for prolonged weaning from ventilation, many more concepts are needed than simply ending ventilation.

Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients: 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.

TTCOV19: timing of tracheotomy in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients: a multicentre, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Critically ill COVID-19 patients may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome and the need for respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. Previous observational studies have suggested early tracheotomy to be advantageous. The aim of this parallel, multicentre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the optimal timing of tracheotomy.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2-infected patients within the Region Västra Götaland of Sweden who needed intubation and mechanical respiratory support were included and randomly assigned to early tracheotomy (≤ 7 days after intubation) or late tracheotomy (≥ 10 days after intubation). The primary objective was to compare the total number of mechanical ventilation days between the groups.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients (mean age 65 years, 79% males) were included. Seventy-two patients were assigned to early tracheotomy, and 78 were assigned to late tracheotomy. One hundred two patients (68%) underwent tracheotomy of whom sixty-one underwent tracheotomy according to the protocol. The overall median number of days in mechanical ventilation was 18 (IQR 9; 28), but no significant difference was found between the two treatment regimens in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference: - 1.5 days (95% CI - 5.7 to 2.8); p = 0.5). A significantly reduced number of mechanical ventilation days was found in the early tracheotomy group during the per-protocol analysis (between-group difference: - 8.0 days (95% CI - 13.8 to - 2.27); p = 0.0064). The overall correlation between the timing of tracheotomy and days of mechanical ventilation was significant (Spearman's correlation: 0.39, p < 0.0001). The total death rate during intensive care was 32.7%, but no significant differences were found between the groups regarding survival, complications or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential superiority of early tracheotomy when compared to late tracheotomy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not confirmed by the present randomized controlled trial but is a strategy that should be considered in selected cases where the need for MV for more than 14 days cannot be ruled out. Trial registration NCT04412356 , registered 05/24/2020.

The Impact of Different Ventilatory Strategies on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the impact of different ventilator strategies (non-invasive ventilation (NIV); invasive MV with tracheal tube (TT) and with tracheostomy (TS) on outcomes (mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay) in patients with COVID-19. We also assessed the impact of timing of percutaneous tracheostomy and other risk factors on mortality. Methods: The retrospective cohort included 868 patients with severe COVID-19. Demographics, MV parameters and duration, and ICU mortality were collected. Results: MV was provided in 530 (61.1%) patients, divided into three groups: NIV (n = 139), TT (n = 313), and TS (n = 78). Prevalence of tracheostomy was 14.7%, and ICU mortality was 90.4%, 60.2%, and 30.2% in TT, TS, and NIV groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Tracheostomy increased the chances of survival and being discharged from ICU (OR 6.3, p < 0.001) despite prolonging ICU stay compared to the TT group (22.2 days vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.001) without differences in survival rates between early and late tracheostomy. Patients who only received invasive MV had higher odds of survival compared to those receiving NIV in ICU prior to invasive MV (OR 2.7, p = 0.001). The odds of death increased with age (OR 1.032, p < 0.001), obesity (1.58, p = 0.041), chronic renal disease (1.57, p = 0.019), sepsis (2.8, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (1.7, p = 0.049), multiple organ dysfunction (3.2, p < 0.001), and ARDS (3.3, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Percutaneous tracheostomy compared to MV via TT significantly increased survival and the rate of discharge from ICU, without differences between early or late tracheostomy.