Dataset Information

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented demand on critical care services for the provision of mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy formation facilitates liberation from mechanical ventilation with advantages for both the patient and wider critical care resource, and can be performed using both percutaneous dilatational and surgical techniques. We compared outcomes in those patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy to those undergoing surgical tracheostomy and make recommendations for provision of tracheostomy services in any future surge.

Methods

Multicentre multidisciplinary retrospective observational cohort study including 201 patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis admitted to an ICU in one of five NHS Trusts within the South London Adult Critical Care Network who required mechanical ventilation and subsequent tracheostomy.

Results

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy was performed in 124 (62%) of patients, and surgical tracheostomy in 77 (38%) of patients. There was no difference between percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy and surgical tracheostomy in either the rate of peri-operative complications (16.9 vs. 22.1%, p?=?0.46), median [IQR(range)] time to decannulation [19.0 (15.0-30.2 (5.0-65.0)] vs. 21.0 [15.5-36.0 (5.0-70.0) days] or mortality (13.7% vs. 15.6%, p?=?0.84). Of the 172 patients that were alive at follow-up, two remained ventilated and 163 were decannulated.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis that require tracheostomy to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation, there was no difference in outcomes between those patients that had percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy compared with those that had surgical tracheostomy. Planning for future surges in COVID-19-related critical care demands should utilise all available resource and expertise.

SUBMITTER: Rovira A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7796696 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation.

Rovira Aleix A Tricklebank Stephen S Surda Pavol P Whebell Stephen S Zhang Joe J Takhar Arun A Yeung Elizabeth E Fan Kathleen K Ahmed Imran I Hopkins Phillip P Dawson Deborah D Ball Jonathan J Kumar Ram R Khaliq Waqas W Simo Ricard R Arora Asit A

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 20210109 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented demand on critical care services for the provision of mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy formation facilitates liberation from mechanical ventilation with advantages for both the patient and wider critical care resource, and can be performed using both percutaneous dilatational and surgical techniques. We compared outcomes in those patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy to those undergoing surgical tracheostomy a ...[more]

PMID: 33420842

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBoth single-use and reusable bronchoscopes are suitable for percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) to visualise the trachea during the insertion process. To determine the least costly option, the price of single-use bronchoscopes must be weighed against the estimated average cost of a bronchoscopy with reusable equipment. In the latter case, the acquisition cost must be spread over the equipment's useful life and other relevant costs, such as reprocessing and repair, must be included.ObjectiveThis study aimed to calculate the cost of using single-use or reusable bronchoscopes per PDT procedure.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing the costs of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes for PDT. Inclusion criteria were articles assessing the cost of single-use or reusable bronchoscopes, and where costs were divided into acquisition, reprocessing, and repair costs. A questionnaire regarding repair rates and costs for reusable bronchoscopes was sent to 366 hospitals in the US, UK, and Germany to supplement the identified literature.ResultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Ninety-nine completed responses were received, of which 31 hospitals used reusable equipment for PDT. Literature research revealed an average acquisition cost of $US135 (SD 152) and reprocessing cost of $US123 (SD 128). Additionally, a combination of data from the literature and the questionnaires gave a repair cost per use of $US148 (SD 242), resulting in a total average cost of $US406 for reusable bronchoscopes and $US249 (SD 36) for single-use bronchoscopes per PDT procedure. Thus, the incremental cost per use of a reusable bronchoscope compared with a single-use bronchoscope was $US157.ConclusionsWe conclude that significant savings can be made by using single-use bronchoscopes to guide PDT in preference to reusable bronchoscopes. Results depend on hospital setting, the reprocessing procedures, annual bronchoscope procedures, individual repair cost, and repair rates.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:BackgroundApart from conventional reusable bronchoscopes, single-use bronchoscopes (SUB) were recently introduced. Data suggest that SUB might prevent from the risk of cross contamination (i.e. multiresistant pathogens, SARS CoV-2) and save costs. We aimed to investigate visualization, ventilation, handling characteristics, changes in patients' gas exchange, and costs associated with both types of bronchoscopes during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT).MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, 46 patients undergoing PDT were randomized 1:1 to PDT with SUB (Ambu aScope) or reusable bronchoscopes (CONV, Olympus BF-P60). Visualization of tracheal structures rated on 4-point Likert scales was the primary end-point. Furthermore, quality of ventilation, device handling characteristics, changes in the patients' gas exchange, pH values, and costs were assessed.ResultsNoninferiority for visualization (the primary endpoint) was demonstrated for the SUB group. Mean visualization scores (lower values better) were 4.1 (95% confidence intervals: 3.9;4.3) for SUB vs. 4.1 (4.0;4.2) for CONV. Noninferiority of ventilation (estimated by minute volume and SpO2) during the procedure could be shown as well. Mean score was 2.6 (2.0;3.1) for SUB vs. 2.4 (2.1;2.7) for CONV (lower values better). No significant differences regarding handling (SUB: 1.2 (1.0;1.4), CONV: 1.3 (1.1;1.6)), blood gas analyses and respiratory variables were found. Cost analysis in our institution revealed 93 € per conventional bronchoscopy versus 232.50 € with SUB, not considering an estimate for possible infection due to cross-contamination with the reusable device.ConclusionIn our study, visualization and overall performance of the SUB during PDT were noninferior to reusable bronchoscopes. Therefore, PDT with SUB is feasible and should be considered if favored by individual institution's cost analysis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03952247 . Submitted for registration on 28/04/2019 and first posted on 16/05/2019.

Project description:BackgroundStudies comparing percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) complications in the critically ill patient population with high acuity, complexity, and severity of illness are sparse. This study evaluated the outcomes of elective PT versus ST in such patients managed at a quaternary referral center.AimsThe primary aim was to detect a difference in hospital mortality between the two techniques. The secondary aims were to compare Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality, complications (including stoma site, tracheostomy-related, and decannulation complications), ICU and hospital length of stay, and time to decannulation.MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective observational study of ICU admission from August 2018 to August 2021. Patients were included if an elective tracheostomy was performed during their ICU admission. Patients with a pre-existing tracheostomy and those who underwent an obligatory tracheostomy requirement (e.g. total laryngectomy) were excluded. Cohorts were matched using Hainmueller's entropy balancing. Binary data were evaluated using logistic regression and continuous data with ordinary least squares regression.Results349 patients with a tracheostomy were managed in the ICU during the observation period. They were predominantly males (75% in PT; 67% in ST), with a mean age in the PT and ST group of (47; SD = 18) and (55; SD = 16), respectively. After exclusion, 135 patients remained, with 63 in the PT group and 72 in the ST group. Patients receiving ST were significantly older with a higher Body Mass Index (BMI) than the PT group. There were no significant differences in gender, Acute Physiological And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III, and the Australian and New Zealand Risk Of Death (ANZROD) between the two groups. There was no difference in hospital mortality between groups (OR 0.91, CI 0.26-3.18, p = 0.88). There were also no differences in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and time to decannulation. PT was associated with a greater likelihood of complications (OR 4.19; 95% CI 1.73-10.13; p < 0.01). PT was associated with a greater risk of complications in those who had this performed early (<10 days of intubation) as well as late (>10 days of intubation).ConclusionsPercutaneous tracheostomy was associated with higher complications compared to surgical tracheostomy. They were related to tracheostomy cuff deflation, stomal site bleeding and infection, sputum plugging, and accidental and failed decannulation. These findings have identified opportunities to improve patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAssessment of the efficacy and complications associated with performing bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.MethodsProspective observational study conducted between March of 2020 and February of 2022. All adult patients who underwent elective bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy were included. The efficacy of the procedure was evaluated based either on the success rate in the execution or on the need for conversion to open technique. Percutaneous tracheostomy-related complications were registered during the procedure. We performed 6-month follow-up for identifying late complications.ResultsDuring the study period, 312 bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomies were analyzed. One hundred and eighty-three were performed in COVID-19 patients and 129 among non-COVID-19 patients. Overall, 64.1% (200) of patients were male, with a median age of 66 (interquartile range 54-74), and 65% (205) presented at least 1 comorbidity. Overall, oxygen desaturation was the main complication observed (20.8% [65]), being more frequent in the COVID-19 group occurring in 27.3% (50) with a statistically significant difference versus the non-COVID-19 patients' group (11.6% [15]); P < .01). Major complications such as hypotension, arrhythmias, and pneumothorax were more frequently observed among COVID-19 patients as well but with no significant differences. Percutaneous tracheostomy could be executed quickly and satisfactorily in all the patients with no need for conversion to the open technique. Likewise, no suspension of the procedure was required in any case. During 6-month follow-up, we found an incidence of 0.96% (n = 3) late complications, 2 tracheal granulomas, and 1 ostomal infection.ConclusionBronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy can be considered an effective and safe procedure in COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, it is highly remarkable that in the series under study, a great number of COVID-19 patients presented oxygen desaturation during the procedure.

Dataset Information

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets