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

Timing of Tracheostomy in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The ideal timing for tracheostomy in critically ill patients is still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether early tracheostomy improves clinical outcomes compared to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the risk of clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent early (within 7-10 days of intubation) versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2023. The primary outcome evaluated was mortality, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. No language restriction was applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing early to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients that reported on mortality. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and evidence certainty was assessed via the GRADE approach. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 RCTs, covering 3586 critically ill patients. Early tracheostomy modestly decreased mortality compared to the control (RR -0.1511 [95% CI: -0.2951 to -0.0070], p = 0.0398). It also reduced ICU length of stay (SMD -0.6237 [95% CI: -0.9526 to -0.2948], p = 0.0002) and the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to late tracheostomy (SMD -0.3887 [95% CI: -0.7726 to -0.0048], p = 0.0472). However, early tracheostomy did not significantly reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to prolonged intubation (SMD -0.1192 [95% CI: -0.2986 to 0.0601], p = 0.1927) or affect VAP incidence (RR -0.0986 [95% CI: -0.2272 to 0.0299], p = 0.1327). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for each outcome indicated that additional trials are needed for conclusive evidence. Conclusions: Early tracheostomy appears to offer some benefits across all considered clinical outcomes when compared to late tracheostomy and prolonged intubation.

Effect of tracheotomy timing on patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

We assessed the effects of tracheostomy timing (early vs. late) on outcomes among adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant RCTs of tracheotomy timing on patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data. Outcomes in patients with early tracheostomy and late tracheostomy groups were compared and analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata14.0 and RevMan 5.4 software. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022360319).

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs were included in this Meta-analysis. The Meta-analysis indicated that early tracheotomy could significantly shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD: -2.77; 95% CI -5.10~ -0.44; P = 0.02) and the length of ICU stay (MD: -6.36; 95% CI -9.84~ -2.88; P = 0.0003), but it did not significantly alter the all-cause mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.73~1.00; P = 0.06), the incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74~1.01; P = 0.06), and length of hospital stay (MD: -3.24; 95% CI -7.99~ 1.52; P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

In patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the tracheostomy performed at an earlier stage may shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation and the length of ICU stay but cannot significantly decrease the all-cause mortality and incidence of pneumonia.

Establishment and validation of a predictive model for tracheotomy in critically ill patients and analysis of the impact of different tracheotomy timing on patient prognosis

BACKGROUND

In critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), it is unable to determine early which patients require tracheotomy and whether early tracheotomy is beneficial.

METHODS

Clinical data of patients who were first admitted to the ICU and underwent invasive ventilation for more than 24 h in the Medical Information Marketplace in Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database were retrospectively collected. Patients were categorized into successful extubation and tracheotomy groups according to whether they were subsequently successfully extubated or underwent tracheotomy. The patients were randomly divided into model training set and validation set in a ratio of 7:3. Constructing predictive models and evaluating and validating the models. The tracheotomized patients were divided into the early tracheotomy group (< = 7 days) and the late tracheotomy group (> 7 days), and the prognosis of the two groups was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 7 key variables were screened: Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score, pneumonia, traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, hemorrhagic stroke, left and right pupil responses to light, and parenteral nutrition. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of the prediction model constructed through these seven variables was 0.897 (95% CI: 0.876-0.919), and 0.896 (95% CI: 0.866-0.926) for the training and validation sets, respectively. Patients in the early tracheotomy group had a shorter length of hospital stay, IMV duration, and sedation duration compared to the late tracheotomy group (p < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in survival outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The prediction model constructed and validated based on the MIMIC-IV database can accurately predict the outcome of tracheotomy in critically ill patients. Meanwhile, early tracheotomy in critically ill patients does not improve survival outcomes but has potential advantages in shortening the duration of hospitalization, IMV, and sedation.

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.