Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

Development of a Prognostic Scoring System for Tracheostomized Patients Requiring Prolonged Ventilator Care: A Ten-Year Experience in a University-Affiliated Tertiary Hospital

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to assess the value of a novel prognostic model, based on clinical variables, comorbidities, and demographic characteristics, to predict long-term prognosis in patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) for over 14 days and who underwent a tracheostomy during the first 14 days of MV. Materials and Methods: Data were obtained from 278 patients (66.2% male; median age: 71 years) who underwent a tracheostomy within the first 14 days of MV from February 2011 to February 2021. Factors predicting 1-year mortality after the initiation of MV were identified by binary logistic regression analysis. The resulting prognostic model, known as the tracheostomy-ProVent score, was computed by assigning points to variables based on their respective ß-coefficients. Results: The overall 1-year mortality rate was 64.7%. Six factors were identified as prognostic indicators: platelet count < 150 × 103/μL, PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg, body mass index (BMI) < 23.0 kg/m2, albumin concentration < 2.8 g/dL on day 14 of MV, chronic cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status at admission. The tracheostomy-ProVent score exhibited acceptable discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.786 (95% confidence interval: 0.733-0.833, p < 0.001) and acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square: 2.753, df: 8, p = 0.949). Based on the maximum Youden index, the cut-off value for predicting mortality was set at ≥2, with a sensitivity of 67.4% and a specificity of 76.3%. Conclusions: The tracheostomy-ProVent score is a good predictive tool for estimating 1-year mortality in tracheostomized patients undergoing MV for >14 days. This comprehensive model integrates clinical variables and comorbidities, enhancing the precision of long-term prognosis in these patients.

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.

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.

Functional Laryngeal Assessment in Patients with Tracheostomy Following COVID-19 a Prospective Cohort Study

To explore laryngeal function of tracheostomised patients with COVID-19 in the acute phase, to identify ways teams may facilitate and expedite tracheostomy weaning and rehabilitation of upper airway function. Consecutive tracheostomised patients underwent laryngeal examination during mechanical ventilation weaning. Primary outcomes included prevalence of upper aerodigestive oedema and airway protection during swallow, tracheostomy duration, ICU frailty scores, and oral intake type. Analyses included bivariate associations and exploratory multivariable regressions. 48 consecutive patients who underwent tracheostomy insertion as part of their respiratory wean following invasive ventilation in a single UK tertiary hospital were included. 21 (43.8%) had impaired airway protection on swallow (PAS ≥ 3) with 32 (66.7%) having marked airway oedema in at least one laryngeal area. Impaired airway protection was associated with longer total artificial airway duration (p = 0.008), longer tracheostomy tube duration (p = 0.007), multiple intubations (p = 0.006) and was associated with persistent ICU acquired weakness at ICU discharge (p = 0.03). Impaired airway protection was also an independent predictor for longer tracheostomy tube duration (p = 0.02, Beta 0.38, 95% CI 2.36 to 27.16). The majority of our study patients presented with complex laryngeal findings which were associated with impaired airway protection. We suggest a proactive standardized scoring and review protocol to manage this complex group of patients in order to maximize health outcomes and ICU resources. Early laryngeal assessment may facilitate weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation and liberation from tracheostomy, as well as practical and objective risk stratification for patients regarding decannulation and feeding.

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.

A Predictive Model for Dysphagia after Ventilator Liberation in Severe Pneumonia Patients Receiving Tracheostomy: A Single-Center, Observational Study

The main purpose of this study was to develop a model predictive of dysphagia in hospital survivors with severe pneumonia who underwent tracheostomy during their hospital stay. The present study included 175 patients (72% male; mean age, 71.3 years) over 5 years. None of these patients had a history of deglutition disorder before hospital admission. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting dysphagia at hospital discharge. Dysphagia scores were calculated from β-coefficients and by assigning points to variables. Of the enrolled patients, 105 (60%) had dysphagia at hospital discharge. Factors prognostic of dysphagia at hospital discharge included being underweight (body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2), non-participation in a dysphagia therapy program, mechanical ventilation ≥ 15 days, age ≥ 74 years, and chronic neurologic diseases. Underweight and non-participation in a dysphagia therapy program were assigned +2 points and the other factors were assigned +1 point. Dysphagia scores showed acceptable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for dysphagia 0.819, 95% confidence interval: 0.754−0.873, p < 0.001) and calibration (Hosmer−Lemeshow chi-square = 9.585, with df 7 and p = 0.213). The developed dysphagia score was predictive of deglutition disorder at hospital discharge in tracheostomized patients with severe pneumonia.

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study

Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either "early" (within 14 d of intubation) or "late" (more than 14 d after intubation).

DESIGN

International multi-institute retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States.

PATIENTS

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, -16 to -8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, -23 to -9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, -31 to -12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity.

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.

Early tracheostomy: on the cutting edge, some benefit more than others

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The decision to undergo early tracheostomy in critically ill patients has been the subject of multiple studies in recent years, including several meta-analyses and a large-scale examination of the National in-patient Sampling (NIS) database. The research has focused on different patient populations, and identified common outcomes measures related to ventilation. At the crux of the new research is the decision to undergo an additional invasive procedure, mainly tracheostomy, rather than attempt endotracheal tube ventilation with or without early extubation. Notably, recent research indicates that neurological and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) patients seem to have an exaggerated benefit from early tracheostomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies of patients undergoing early tracheostomy have shown decreases in ventilator associated pneumonia, ventilator duration and duration of ICU stay. However, these studies have shown mixed data with respect to mortality and length of hospitalization. Such advantages only become apparent with large-scale examination. Confounding the overall discussion is that the research has focused on heterogeneous groups, including neurosurgical ICU patients, general ICU patients, and most recently, intubated COVID-19 patients.

SUMMARY

Specific populations such as neurosurgical and COVID-19 patients have clearly defined benefits following early tracheostomy. Although the benefit is less pronounced, there does seem to be an advantage in general ICU patients with regards to ventilator-free days and lower incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. In these patients, large-scale examination points to a clear mortality benefit.

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

BACKGROUND

The association of tracheostomy timing and clinical outcomes in ventilated COVID-19 patients remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy on COVID-19 patients' outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus database, along with medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square, from December 1, 2019, to August 24, 2021. Early tracheostomy was defined as a tracheostomy conducted 14 days or less after initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Late tracheostomy was any time thereafter. Duration of IMV, duration of ICU stay, and overall mortality were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) or the mean differences (MD) with 95%CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a cumulative 2371 tracheostomized COVID-19 patients were included in this review. Early tracheostomy was associated with significant reductions in duration of IMV (2098 patients; MD - 9.08 days, 95% CI - 10.91 to - 7.26 days, p < 0.01) and duration of ICU stay (1224 patients; MD - 9.41 days, 95% CI - 12.36 to - 6.46 days, p < 0.01). Mortality was reported for 2343 patients and was comparable between groups (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79-1.51, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, compared with late tracheostomy, early tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients was associated with shorter duration of IMV and ICU stay without modifying the mortality rate. These findings may have important implications to improve ICU availability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration The protocol was registered at INPLASY (INPLASY202180088).