Cargando…
Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression
BACKGROUND: We 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), decannulati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36182551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.032 |
_version_ | 1784761533617668096 |
---|---|
author | Battaglini, Denise Premraj, Lavienraj White, Nicole Sutt, Anna-Liisa Robba, Chiara Cho, Sung-Min Di Giacinto, Ida Bressan, Filippo Sorbello, Massimiliano Cuthbertson, Brian H. Bassi, Gianluigi Li Suen, Jacky Fraser, John F. Pelosi, Paolo |
author_facet | Battaglini, Denise Premraj, Lavienraj White, Nicole Sutt, Anna-Liisa Robba, Chiara Cho, Sung-Min Di Giacinto, Ida Bressan, Filippo Sorbello, Massimiliano Cuthbertson, Brian H. Bassi, Gianluigi Li Suen, Jacky Fraser, John F. Pelosi, Paolo |
author_sort | Battaglini, Denise |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We 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. METHODS: Four 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. RESULTS: The 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; I(2)=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7–25.5; I(2)=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; I(2)=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1–45.6; I(2)=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; I(2)=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; I(2)=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021272220. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9345907 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93459072022-08-03 Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression Battaglini, Denise Premraj, Lavienraj White, Nicole Sutt, Anna-Liisa Robba, Chiara Cho, Sung-Min Di Giacinto, Ida Bressan, Filippo Sorbello, Massimiliano Cuthbertson, Brian H. Bassi, Gianluigi Li Suen, Jacky Fraser, John F. Pelosi, Paolo Br J Anaesth Critical Care BACKGROUND: We 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. METHODS: Four 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. RESULTS: The 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; I(2)=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7–25.5; I(2)=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; I(2)=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1–45.6; I(2)=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; I(2)=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; I(2)=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021272220. Elsevier 2022-11 2022-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9345907/ /pubmed/36182551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.032 Text en © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
spellingShingle | Critical Care Battaglini, Denise Premraj, Lavienraj White, Nicole Sutt, Anna-Liisa Robba, Chiara Cho, Sung-Min Di Giacinto, Ida Bressan, Filippo Sorbello, Massimiliano Cuthbertson, Brian H. Bassi, Gianluigi Li Suen, Jacky Fraser, John F. Pelosi, Paolo Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title | Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title_full | Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title_fullStr | Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title_full_unstemmed | Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title_short | Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
title_sort | tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with covid-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression |
topic | Critical Care |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9345907/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36182551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.032 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT battaglinidenise tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT premrajlavienraj tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT whitenicole tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT suttannaliisa tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT robbachiara tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT chosungmin tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT digiacintoida tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT bressanfilippo tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT sorbellomassimiliano tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT cuthbertsonbrianh tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT bassigianluigili tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT suenjacky tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT fraserjohnf tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression AT pelosipaolo tracheostomyoutcomesincriticallyillpatientswithcovid19asystematicreviewmetaanalysisandmetaregression |