Cargando…

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

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 u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rovira, Aleix, Tricklebank, Stephen, Surda, Pavol, Whebell, Stephen, Zhang, Joe, Takhar, Arun, Yeung, Elizabeth, Fan, Kathleen, Ahmed, Imran, Hopkins, Phillip, Dawson, Deborah, Ball, Jonathan, Kumar, Ram, Khaliq, Waqas, Simo, Ricard, Arora, Asit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7796696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33420842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1
_version_ 1783634738978750464
author Rovira, Aleix
Tricklebank, Stephen
Surda, Pavol
Whebell, Stephen
Zhang, Joe
Takhar, Arun
Yeung, Elizabeth
Fan, Kathleen
Ahmed, Imran
Hopkins, Phillip
Dawson, Deborah
Ball, Jonathan
Kumar, Ram
Khaliq, Waqas
Simo, Ricard
Arora, Asit
author_facet Rovira, Aleix
Tricklebank, Stephen
Surda, Pavol
Whebell, Stephen
Zhang, Joe
Takhar, Arun
Yeung, Elizabeth
Fan, Kathleen
Ahmed, Imran
Hopkins, Phillip
Dawson, Deborah
Ball, Jonathan
Kumar, Ram
Khaliq, Waqas
Simo, Ricard
Arora, Asit
author_sort Rovira, Aleix
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7796696
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77966962021-01-11 Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation Rovira, Aleix Tricklebank, Stephen Surda, Pavol Whebell, Stephen Zhang, Joe Takhar, Arun Yeung, Elizabeth Fan, Kathleen Ahmed, Imran Hopkins, Phillip Dawson, Deborah Ball, Jonathan Kumar, Ram Khaliq, Waqas Simo, Ricard Arora, Asit Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Miscellaneous 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-01-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7796696/ /pubmed/33420842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1 Text en © Crown 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Miscellaneous
Rovira, Aleix
Tricklebank, Stephen
Surda, Pavol
Whebell, Stephen
Zhang, Joe
Takhar, Arun
Yeung, Elizabeth
Fan, Kathleen
Ahmed, Imran
Hopkins, Phillip
Dawson, Deborah
Ball, Jonathan
Kumar, Ram
Khaliq, Waqas
Simo, Ricard
Arora, Asit
Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title_full Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title_fullStr Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title_full_unstemmed Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title_short Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
title_sort open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in covid-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
topic Miscellaneous
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7796696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33420842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1
work_keys_str_mv AT roviraaleix openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT tricklebankstephen openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT surdapavol openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT whebellstephen openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT zhangjoe openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT takhararun openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT yeungelizabeth openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT fankathleen openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT ahmedimran openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT hopkinsphillip openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT dawsondeborah openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT balljonathan openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT kumarram openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT khaliqwaqas openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT simoricard openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation
AT aroraasit openversuspercutaneoustracheostomyincovid19amulticentrecomparisonandrecommendationforfutureresourceutilisation