Dataset Information

Timing of tracheostomy in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with acute traumatic cervical or high thoracic level spinal cord injury (SCI) typically require mechanical ventilation (MV) during their acute admission. Placement of a tracheostomy is preferred when prolonged weaning from MV is anticipated. However, the optimal timing of tracheostomy placement in patients with acute traumatic SCI remains uncertain. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine the effects of early versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in patients with acute traumatic SCI on important clinical outcomes.

Methods

Six databases were searched from their inception to January 2020. Conference abstracts from relevant proceedings and the gray literature were searched to identify additional studies. Data were obtained by two independent reviewers to ensure accuracy and completeness. The quality of observational studies was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

Results

Seventeen studies (2,804 patients) met selection criteria, 14 of which were published after 2009. Meta-analysis showed that early tracheostomy was not associated with decreased short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.79; p = 0.65; n = 2,072), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (mean difference [MD], 13.1 days; 95% CI, -6.70 to -21.11; p = 0.0002; n = 855), intensive care unit length of stay (MD, -10.20 days; 95% CI, -4.66 to -15.74; p = 0.0003; n = 855), and hospital length of stay (MD, -7.39 days; 95% CI, -3.74 to -11.03; p < 0.0001; n = 423). Early tracheostomy was also associated with a decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and tracheostomy-related complications (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98; p = 0.02; n = 2,043 and RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; p = 0.001; n = 812 respectively). The majority of studies ranked as good methodologic quality on the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

Conclusion

Early tracheostomy in patients with acute traumatic SCI may reduce duration of mechanical entilation, length of intensive care unit stay, and length of hospital stay. Current studies highlight the lack of high-level evidence to guide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in acute traumatic SCI. Future research should seek to understand whether early tracheostomy improves patient comfort, decreases duration of sedation, and improves long-term outcomes.

Level of evidence

Systematic Review, level III.

SUBMITTER: Foran SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8677619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systematic review.To conduct a systematic review and synthesis of the literature to assess the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early (?24 hours) versus late decompression (>24 hours) in adults with acute spinal cord injury (SCI).A systematic search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies published through November 6, 2014. Studies published in any language, in humans, and with an abstract were considered for inclusion. Included studies were critically appraised and the overall strength of evidence was determined using methods proposed by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group.The search yielded 449 potentially relevant citations. Sixteen additional primary studies were identified through other sources. Six studies met inclusion criteria. All but 2 studies were considered to have moderately high risk of bias. Across studies and injury levels, the impact of early surgical decompression (?24 hours) on clinically important improvement in neurological status was variable. Isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvements at 6 months (cervical injury, low strength of evidence) and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation (all levels, very low strength of evidence) but not at other time points; another study observed a statistically significant 6 point improvement in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) among patients with AIS B, C, or D, but not for those with AIS A (very low strength of evidence). In one study of acute central cord syndrome without instability, a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in total motor scores was reported at 6 and 12 months in patients treated early (versus late). There were, however, no significant differences in AIS improvement between early and late surgical groups at 6- or 12-months (very low strength of evidence). One of 3 studies found a shorter length of hospital stay associated with early surgical decompression. Of 3 studies reporting on safety, no significant differences in rates of complications (including mortality, neurologic deterioration, pneumonia or pressure ulcers) were noted between early and late decompression groups.Results surrounding the efficacy of early versus late decompressive surgery, as well as the quality of evidence available, were variable depending on the level of SCI, timing of follow-up, and specific outcome considered. Existing evidence supports improved neurological recovery among cervical SCI patients undergoing early surgery; however, evidence regarding remaining SCI populations and clinical outcomes was inconsistent.

Project description:Study designSystematic review update.ObjectivesInterventions that aim to optimize spinal cord perfusion are thought to play an important role in minimizing secondary ischemic damage and improving outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCIs). However, exactly how to optimize spinal cord perfusion and enhance neurologic recovery remains controversial. We performed an update of a recent systematic review (Evaniew et al, J. Neurotrauma 2020) to evaluate the effects of Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) support or Spinal Cord Perfusion Pressure (SCPP) support on neurological recovery and rates of adverse events among patients with acute traumatic SCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for new published reports. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. We implemented the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate confidence in the quality of the evidence.ResultsFrom 569 potentially relevant new citations since 2019, we identified 9 new studies for inclusion, which were combined with 19 studies from a prior review to give a total of 28 studies. According to low or very low quality evidence, the effect of MAP support on neurological recovery is uncertain, and increased SCPP may be associated with improved neurological recovery. Both approaches may involve risks for specific adverse events, but the importance of these adverse events to patients remains unclear. Very low quality evidence failed to yield reliable guidance about particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, or durations of treatment.ConclusionsThis update provides an evidence base to support the development of a new clinical practice guideline for the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI. While avoidance of hypotension and maintenance of spinal cord perfusion are important principles in the management of an acute SCI, the literature does not provide high quality evidence in support of a particular protocol. Further prospective, controlled research studies with objective validated outcome assessments are required to examine interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion in this setting.

Project description:The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to address the following clinical questions: In adult patients with acute and subacute complete or incomplete traumatic SCI, (1) does the time interval between injury and commencing rehabilitation affect outcome?; (2) what is the comparative effectiveness of different rehabilitation strategies, including different intensities and durations of treatment?; (3) are there patient or injury characteristics that affect the efficacy of rehabilitation?; and (4) what is the cost-effectiveness of various rehabilitation strategies?A systematic search was conducted for literature published through March 31, 2015 that evaluated rehabilitation strategies in adults with acute or subacute traumatic SCI at any level. Studies were critically appraised individually and the overall strength of evidence was evaluated using methods proposed by the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group.The search strategy yielded 384 articles, 19 of which met our inclusion criteria. Based on our results, there was no difference between body weight-supported treadmill training and conventional rehabilitation with respect to improvements in Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Locomotor score, Lower Extremity Motor Scores, the distance walked in 6 minutes or gait velocity over 15.2 m. Functional electrical therapy resulted in slightly better FIM Motor, FIM Self-Care, and Spinal Cord Independence Measure Self-Care subscores compared with conventional occupational therapy. Comparisons using the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test demonstrated no differences between groups in 7 of 9 domains. There were no clinically important differences in Maximal Lean Test, Maximal Sidewards Reach Test, T-shirt Test, or the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure between unsupported sitting training and standard in-patient rehabilitation.The current evidence base for rehabilitation following acute and subacute spinal cord injury is limited. Methodological challenges have contributed to this and further research is still needed.

Project description:Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveSurgical decompression is a cornerstone in the management of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); however, the influence of the timing of surgery on neurological recovery after acute SCI remains controversial. This systematic review aims to summarize current evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early (≤24 hours) or late (>24 hours) surgery in patients with acute traumatic SCI for all levels of the spine. Furthermore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery (earlier than 24 hours from injury) on these outcomes.MethodsA systematic search of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE database (PubMed), Cochrane database, and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently screened the citations from the search to determine whether an article satisfied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. For all key questions, we focused on primary studies with the least potential for bias and those that controlled for baseline neurological status and specified time from injury to surgery. Risk of bias of each article was assessed using standardized tools based on study design. Finally, the overall strength of evidence for the primary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE approach. Data were synthesized both qualitatively and quantitively using meta-analyses.ResultsTwenty-one studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria and formed the evidence base for this review update. Seventeen studies compared outcomes between patients treated with early (≤24 hours from injury) compared to late (>24 hours) surgical decompression. An additional 4 studies evaluated even earlier time frames: <4, <5, <8 or <12 hours. Based on moderate evidence, patients were 2 times more likely to recover by ≥ 2 grades on the ASIA Impairment Score (AIS) at 6 months (RR: 2.76, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.98) and 12 months (RR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.18) if they were decompressed within 24 hours compared to after 24 hours. Furthermore, moderate evidence suggested that patients receiving early decompression had an additional 4.50 (95% CI 1.70 to 7.29) point improvement on the ASIA motor score. With respect to administrative outcomes, there was low evidence that early decompression may decrease acute hospital length of stay. In terms of safety, there was moderate evidence that suggested the rate of major complications does not differ between patients undergoing early compared to late surgery. Furthermore, there was no difference in rates of mortality, surgical device-related complications, sepsis/systemic infection or neurological deterioration based on timing of surgery. Firm conclusions were not possible with respect to the impact of ultra-early surgery on neurological, functional or safety outcomes given the poor-quality studies, imprecision and the overlap in the time frames examined.ConclusionsThis review provides an evidence base to support the update on clinical practice guidelines related to the timing of surgical decompression in acute SCI. Overall, the strength of evidence was moderate that early surgery (≤24 hours from injury) compared to late (>24 hours) results in clinically meaningful improvements in neurological recovery. Further studies are required to delineate the role of ultra-early surgery in patients with acute SCI.

Project description:Background: Traumatic spinal cord injury (t-SCI) is a severe injury that has a devastating impact on neurological function. Blood spinal cord barrier (BSCB) destruction following SCI aggravates the primary injury, resulting in a secondary injury. A series of experimental treatments have been proven to alleviate BSCB destruction after t-SCI. Methods: From a screen of 1,189 papers, which were retrieved from Pubmed, Embase, and Web of science, we identified 28 papers which adhered to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Evans blue (EB) leakage on the first day post-SCI was selected as the primary result. Secondary outcomes included the expression of tight junction (TJ) proteins and adhesion junction (AJ) proteins in protein immunoblotting. In addition, we measured functional recovery using the Basso, Beattie, Besnahan (BBB) score and we analyzed the relevant mechanisms to explore the similarities between different studies. Result: The forest plot of Evans blue leakage (EB leakage) reduction rate: the pooled effect size of the 28 studies was 0.54, 95% CI: 0.47–0.61, p < 0.01. This indicates that measures to mitigate BSCB damage significantly improved in reducing overall EB leakage. In addition TJ proteins (Occludin, Claudin-5, and ZO-1), AJ proteins (P120 and β-catenin) were significantly upregulated after treatment in all publications. Moreover, BBB scores were significantly improved. Comprehensive studies have shown that in t-SCI, inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) is the most commonly used mechanism to mitigate BSCB damage, followed by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and the Akt pathway. In addition, we found that bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes (BMSC-Exos), which inhibit the TIMP2/MMP signaling pathway, may be the most effective way to alleviate BSCB injury. Conclusion: This study systematically analyzes the experimental treatments and their mechanisms for reducing BSCB injury in the early stage of t-SCI. BMSC-Exos, which inhibit MMP expression, are currently the most effective therapeutic modality for alleviating BSCB damage. In addition, the regulation of MMPs in particular as well as the Akt pathway and the ER stress pathway play important roles in alleviating BSCB injury. Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022324794.

Project description:Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating condition that causes substantial morbidity and mortality and for which no treatments are available. Stem cells offer some promise in the restoration of neurological function. We used systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression to study the impact of stem cell biology and experimental design on motor and sensory outcomes following stem cell treatments in animal models of SCI. One hundred and fifty-six publications using 45 different stem cell preparations met our prespecified inclusion criteria. Only one publication used autologous stem cells. Overall, allogeneic stem cell treatment appears to improve both motor (effect size, 27.2%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 25.0%-29.4%; 312 comparisons in 5,628 animals) and sensory (effect size, 26.3%; 95% CI, 7.9%-44.7%; 23 comparisons in 473 animals) outcome. For sensory outcome, most heterogeneity between experiments was accounted for by facets of stem cell biology. Differentiation before implantation and intravenous route of delivery favoured better outcome. Stem cell implantation did not appear to improve sensory outcome in female animals and appeared to be enhanced by isoflurane anaesthesia. Biological plausibility was supported by the presence of a dose-response relationship. For motor outcome, facets of stem cell biology had little detectable effect. Instead most heterogeneity could be explained by the experimental modelling and the outcome measure used. The location of injury, method of injury induction, and presence of immunosuppression all had an impact. Reporting of measures to reduce bias was higher than has been seen in other neuroscience domains but were still suboptimal. Motor outcomes studies that did not report the blinded assessment of outcome gave inflated estimates of efficacy. Extensive recent preclinical literature suggests that stem-cell-based therapies may offer promise, however the impact of compromised internal validity and publication bias mean that efficacy is likely to be somewhat lower than reported here.