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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |