Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ferro A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130586 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWe 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.MethodsFour 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes.Systematic review protocolPROSPERO CRD42021272220.
| S-EPMC9345907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFourteen 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).ConclusionsThe 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).
| S-EPMC8822732 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC1550905 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceApproximately 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of tracheostomy with COVID-19 patient outcomes and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health care professionals (HCPs).Data sourcesEMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to March 4, 2021.Study selectionEnglish-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 synthesisWe 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 measuresSARS-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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceThe 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.
| S-EPMC8160928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize reported long-term outcomes in patients undergoing tracheostomy after severe acute brain injury (SABI).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies in English, German, and Spanish between 1990 and 2019, reporting outcomes in patients with SABI who underwent tracheostomy. We adhered to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and the meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines. We excluded studies reporting on less than 10 patients, mixed populations with other neurological diseases, or studies assessing highly select subgroups defined by age or procedures. Data were extracted independently by two investigators. Results were pooled using random effects modeling. The primary outcome was long-term functional outcome (mRS or GOS) at 6-12 months. Secondary outcomes included hospital and long-term mortality, decannulation rates, and discharge home rates.ResultsOf 1405 studies identified, 61 underwent full manuscript review and 19 studies comprising 35,362 patients from 10 countries were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was available from five studies with 451 patients. At 6-12 months, about one-third of patients (30%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17-48) achieved independence, and about one-third survived in a dependent state (36%, 95% CI 28-46%). The pooled short-term mortality for 19,048 patients was 12%, (95% CI 9-17%) with no significant difference between stroke (10%) and TBI patients (13%), and the pooled long-term mortality was 21% (95% CI 11-36). Decannulation occurred in 79% (95% CI 51-93%) of survivors. Heterogeneity was high for most outcome assessments (I2 > 75%).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that about one in three patients with SABI who undergo tracheostomy may eventually achieve independence. Future research is needed to understand the reasons for the heterogeneity between studies and to identify those patients with promising outcomes as well as factors influencing outcome.
| S-EPMC8363498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this case series was to demonstrate that surgical tracheostomy can be undertaken safely in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and that it is an effective weaning tool.Study designRetrospective case series.SettingSingle academic teaching hospital in London.MethodsAll adult patients admitted to the adult intensive care unit (AICU), diagnosed with severe COVID-19 infection and requiring surgical tracheostomy between the March 10, 2020, and May 1, 2020, were included. Data collection focused upon patient demographics, AICU admission data, tracheostomy-specific data, and clinical outcomes.ResultsTwenty patients with COVID-19 underwent surgical tracheostomy. The main indication for tracheostomy was to assist in respiratory weaning. Patients had undergone mechanical ventilation for a median of 16.5 days prior to surgical tracheostomy. Tracheostomy remained in situ for a median of 12.5 days. Sixty percent of patients were decannulated at the end of the data collection period. There were no serious immediate or short-term complications. Surgical tracheostomy facilitated significant reduction in intravenous sedation at 48 hours after tracheostomy formation. There was no confirmed COVID-19 infection or reported sickness in the operating surgical or anesthetic teams.ConclusionSurgical tracheostomy has been demonstrated to be an effective weaning tool in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC7797581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors.MethodsEmbase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistic. Egger's tests for publication bias.ResultsDatabase searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (-0.057, 95% CI: -107 to -0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger's test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress.ConclusionThis study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery.Prospero registration numberCRD42020201247.
| S-EPMC10151247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and objectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a challenge globally. In severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic 60% of patients had hepatic injury, due to phylogenetic similarities of the viruses it is assumed that COVID-19 is associated with acute liver injury. In this meta-analysis, we aim to study the occurrence and association of liver injury, comorbid liver disease and elevated liver enzymes in COVID-19 confirmed hospitalizations with outcomes.Materials and methodsData from observational studies describing comorbid chronic liver disease, acute liver injury, elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients from December 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020 was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Adverse outcomes were defined as admission to intensive care unit (ICU), oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), severe disease and in-hospital mortality. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were obtained.Results24 studies with 12,882 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. Overall prevalence of CM-CLD was 2.6%, COVID-19-ALI was 26.5%, elevated AST was 41.1% and elevated ALT was 29.1%. CM-CLD had no significant association with poor outcomes (pooled OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.71-1.29; p=0.78). COVID-19-ALI (1.68;1.04-2.70; p=0.03), elevated AST (2.98; 2.35-3.77; p<0.00001) and elevated ALT (1.85;1.49-2.29; p<0.00001) were significantly associated with higher odds of poor outcomes.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that acute liver injury and elevated liver enzymes were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity. Future studies should evaluate changing levels of biomarkers amongst liver disease patients to predict poor outcomes of COVID-19 and causes of liver injury during COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC7566821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. We herein performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodOvid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid the Cochrane Library, and other electronic databases were searched until 30 November 2020 to identify publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 transmission, personal protective equipment use, rates of case fatality, complications, and procedural success.ResultsA total of 18 articles involving 329 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall basic reproduction rate is 0.37, while the subgroup results from Asia, Europe, and North America are 0.13, 0.44, and 0.33, respectively. The differences in personal protective equipment use between the positive transmission and non-transmission group are mainly in isolation gowns, N95 or equivalent masks, and goggles or face-shields. The rate of case fatality, complication, and procedural success are 0.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.02-0.38), 0.00 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.02), and 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-1.00), respectively. The fatality rate in Europe was the highest (0.23, 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.50), which is significantly different from other continents (p = 0.034).ConclusionThe risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within gastrointestinal endoscopy units is considerably low if proper use of personal protective equipment is applied. Similarly, a low fatality and complication rate, as well as a high procedural success rate, indicated that a full recovery of endoscopic units should be considered.
| S-EPMC8408897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is rapidly evolving. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in IBD patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Google Scholar from inception through October 2020. We included studies with IBD patients and confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected on the prevalence, patient characteristics, pre-infection treatments for IBD, comorbidities, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU), admission, and death.ResultsTwenty-three studies with 51,643 IBD patients and 1449 with COVID-19 met our inclusion criteria. In 14 studies (n = 50,706) that included IBD patients with and without COVID-19, the prevalence of infection was 1.01% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.10). Of IBD patients with COVID-19, 52.7% had Crohn's disease, 42.2% had ulcerative colitis, and 5.1% had indeterminate colitis. Nine studies (n = 687) reported outcomes according to IBD therapy received. Compared with patients on corticosteroids, those on antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy had a lower risk of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.35; P < .01; I2 = 0%) and ICU admission (RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.03-0.37; P < .01) but not death (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.71; P = .13; I2 = 39%). Compared with patients on mesalamine, those on antitumor necrosis factor therapy had a lower risk of hospitalizations (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.54), ICU admissions (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and death (0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.00). Comparing patients on immunomodulators vs mesalamine or anti-TNF therapy, there was no difference in these outcomes.ConclusionsThe prevalence of COVID-19 in IBD patients was low. Use of corticosteroids or mesalamine was significantly associated with worse outcomes, whereas use of anti-TNFs was associated with more favorable outcomes. Further investigation clarifying the mechanisms of these disparate observations could help identify risk and adverse outcome-mitigating strategies for patients with IBD.
| S-EPMC8574492 | biostudies-literature