Timing of Tracheostomy for Prolonged Respiratory Wean in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Machine Learning Approach

A New Fuzzy-Based Classification Method for Use in Smart/Precision Medicine

The development of information technology has had a significant impact on various areas of human activity, including medicine. It has led to the emergence of the phenomenon of Industry 4.0, which, in turn, led to the development of the concept of Medicine 4.0. Medicine 4.0, or smart medicine, can be considered as a structural association of such areas as AI-based medicine, telemedicine, and precision medicine. Each of these areas has its own characteristic data, along with the specifics of their processing and analysis. Nevertheless, at present, all these types of data must be processed simultaneously, in order to provide the most complete picture of the health of each individual patient. In this paper, after a brief analysis of the topic of medical data, a new classification method is proposed that allows the processing of the maximum number of data types. The specificity of this method is its use of a fuzzy classifier. The effectiveness of this method is confirmed by an analysis of the results from the classification of various types of data for medical applications and health problems. In this paper, as an illustration of the proposed method, a fuzzy decision tree has been used as the fuzzy classifier. The accuracy of the classification in terms of the proposed method, based on a fuzzy classifier, gives the best performance in comparison with crisp classifiers.

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.

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.

Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to hypoxemic respiratory failure resulting in prolonged mechanical ventilation. Typically, tracheostomy is considered in patients who remain ventilator dependent beyond 2 weeks. However, in the setting of this novel respiratory virus, the safety and benefits of tracheostomy are not well-defined. Our aim is to describe our experience with percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single center retrospective descriptive study. We reviewed comorbidities and outcomes in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy at our institution from April 2020 to September 2020. In addition, we provide details of our attempt to minimize aerosolization by using a modified protocol with brief periods of planned apnea.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients underwent percutaneous tracheostomy during the study. The average body mass index was 33.0±10.0. At 30 days posttracheostomy 17 (71%) patients still had the tracheostomy tube and 14 (58%) remained ventilator dependent. There were 3 (13%) who died within 30 days. At the time of data analysis in November 2020, 9 (38%) patients had died and 7 (29%) had been decannulated. None of the providers who participated in the procedure experienced signs or symptoms of COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous tracheostomy in prolonged respiratory failure due to COVID-19 appears to be safe to perform at the bedside for both the patient and health care providers in the appropriate clinical context. Morbid obesity did not limit the ability to perform percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and inhaled sedation in coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and the primary cause of death in the current pandemic. Critically ill patients often undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy as the last resort over an extended period. ECMO therapy requires sedation of the patient, which is usually achieved by intravenous administration of sedatives. The shortage of intravenous sedative drugs due to the ongoing pandemic, and attempts to improve treatment outcome for COVID-19 patients, drove the application of inhaled sedation as a promising alternative for sedation during ECMO therapy. Administration of volatile anesthetics requires an appropriate delivery. Commercially available ones are the anesthetic gas reflection systems AnaConDa^® and MIRUS^TM, and each should be combined with a gas scavenging system. In this review, we describe respiratory management in COVID-19 patients and the procedures for inhaled sedation during ECMO therapy of COVID-19 related ARDS. We focus particularly on the technical details of administration of volatile anesthetics. Furthermore, we describe the advantages of inhaled sedation and volatile anesthetics, and we discuss the limitations as well as the requirements for safe application in the clinical setting.

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.

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.