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.

Ventilator-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Pneumonia in a Patient with a Negative MRSA Nasal Swab

BACKGROUND Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, MRSA testing by nasal swab has been utilized to "exclude" pneumonia caused by MRSA, given its high negative-predictive value (NPV). We present, however, a case of MRSA pneumonia diagnosed by endotracheal aspirate culture (EAC) in a patient with a negative MRSA nasal swab. CASE REPORT A 58-year-old woman presented with septic shock and respiratory failure. Chest X-ray (CXR) on admission was unrevealing; however, computed tomography (CT) revealed multifocal pneumonia. Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-level care was required for mechanical ventilation and vasopressors. She initially improved with treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and was extubated on hospital day 6; however, she then developed a fever, tachycardia, and respiratory distress necessitating re-intubation later that day. Repeat CXR demonstrated a new left lower lobe infiltrate. Blood cultures were drawn and vancomycin and cefepime were started to cover for ventilator-associated pathogens. An EAC and nasal swab were collected to test for MRSA. The next day (day 7), the MRSA nasal swab returned negative, and vancomycin was discontinued. Our patient continued to experience fevers, worsening leukocytosis, and ongoing vasopressor need. On hospital day 9, the EAC results were obtained, and were positive for MRSA. Vancomycin was restarted and our patient recovered. CONCLUSIONS Negative MRSA nasal screening may be considered grounds to de-escalate empiric MRSA antibiotics if MRSA prevalence is low. However, in critically ill patients with high risk and suspicion for MRSA pneumonia, discontinuing empiric MRSA coverage should be done with caution or clinicians should wait until respiratory culture results are obtained before de-escalating antibiotics.

Prevalence, outcomes, and predictors of multidrug-resistant nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections among patients in an ICU

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence, outcomes, and predictors of multidrug-resistant nosocomial lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in patients in an ICU.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study involving patients with nosocomial LRTI (health care-associated pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, or ventilator-associated pneumonia). Data were prospectively collected between 2015 and 2019. The multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDRPs) identified in the isolates studied included resistant to extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at microbiological diagnosis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 267 patients in the ICU were diagnosed with LRTI, microbiological confirmation of LRTI having been obtained in 237. Of these, 146 (62%) had at least one MDRP isolate. Patients infected with MDRP were found to have poorer outcomes than patients infected with susceptible strains, such as prolonged mechanical ventilation (18.0 days vs. 12.0 days; p < 0.001), prolonged ICU length of stay (23.0 days vs.16.0 days; p < 0.001), and higher mortality (73% vs. 53%; p < 0.001) when compared with patients infected with susceptible strains. Hospital length of stay ≥ 5 days (OR = 3.20; 95% CI: 1.39-7.39; p = 0.005) and prolonged use vasoactive drugs (OR = 3.15; 95% CI: 1.42-7.01; p = 0.004) were independent predictors of LRTI caused by MDRPs (LRTI-MDRP). The presence of LRTI-MDRP was found to be an independent predictor of death (OR = 2.311; 95% CI: 1.091-4.894; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged use of vasoactive drugs and prolonged hospital length of stay were independent predictors of LRTI-MDRP in this population of critically ill patients with very poor outcomes.

Impact of an Educational Intervention Aimed at Nursing Staff on Oral Hygiene Care on the Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Ventilated in Intensive Care Unit

OBJECTIVES

This work sought to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on oral hygiene care aimed at nursing care staff, on the incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) in adults from an ICU in Colombia.

METHODS

Quasi-experimental study pre- and post-educational intervention aimed at nursing staff in which theoretical-practical sessions were conducted during 12 weeks to explain different oral hygiene techniques according to the oral conditions of patients. The study gathered sociodemographic, clinical, and characteristic variables of the oral and dental care received. The VAP was diagnosed according with international criteria.

RESULTS

The educational intervention received participation from 60 individuals (40 nurses and 20 nursing aides), 80% were women. The work collected data from 171 patients, 70 (40.9%) cared for after the educational intervention. Daily oral and dental care by the staff increased from 29.6% to 92.8% after the intervention. Although the accumulated incidence of VAP diminished from 8.9% to 2.8% and the rate of incidence dropped from 9 to 3.5 cases per 1,000 days of intubation, these changes were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The educational intervention aimed at the nursing staff in oral care reduced the incidence of VAP in adults connected to ventilator in ICU; although this decrease was not statistically significant, it was a clinically relevant result for the institution, which is why it is necessary to continue the educational strategies on oral health studied in this staff.

Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush, or combination, together with suction of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral hygiene care (OHC) on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 25 February 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 25 February 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 25 February 2020), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 25 February 2020) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 25 February 2020). We also searched the VIP Database (January 2012 to 8 March 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, gel, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using the random-effects model of meta-analysis when data from four or more trials were combined.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 RCTs (5675 participants), which were conducted in various countries including China, USA, Brazil and Iran. We categorised these RCTs into five main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; CHX mouthrinse versus other oral care agents; toothbrushing (± antiseptics) versus no toothbrushing (± antiseptics); powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of other oral care agents used in OHC (other oral care agents versus placebo/usual care, or head-to-head comparisons between other oral care agents). We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in 31 trials and low in two, with the rest being unclear. Moderate-certainty evidence from 13 RCTs (1206 participants, 92% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 26% to about 18% (RR 0.67, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 66%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 12 (95% CI 7 to 128), i.e. providing OHC including CHX for 12 ventilated patients in intensive care would prevent one patient developing VAP. There was no evidence of a difference between interventions for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; P = 0.86, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 944 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -3.20 to 1.00 days; P = 0.30, I2 = 74%; 4 RCTs, 594 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD -0.89 days, 95% CI -3.59 to 1.82 days; P = 0.52, I2 = 69%; 5 RCTs, 627 participants; low-certainty evidence). Most studies did not mention adverse effects. One study reported adverse effects, which were mild, with similar frequency in CHX and control groups and one study reported there were no adverse effects. Toothbrushing (± antiseptics) may reduce the incidence of VAP (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; P = 0.01, I2 = 40%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is also some evidence that toothbrushing may reduce the duration of ICU stay (MD -1.89 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.27 days; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 749 participants), but this is very low certainty. Low-certainty evidence did not show a reduction in mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; P = 0.12, I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 910 participants) or duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.43, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.30; P = 0.25, I2 = 46%; 4 RCTs, 810 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel, as part of OHC, probably reduces the incidence of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients from 26% to about 18%, when compared to placebo or usual care. We did not find a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of stay in the intensive care unit, although the evidence was low certainty. OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing may be more effective than OHC with antiseptics alone to reduce the incidence of VAP and the length of ICU stay, but, again, the evidence is low certainty. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.