Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic is placing unprecedented demand upon critical care services for invasive mechanical ventilation. There is current uncertainty regarding the role of tracheostomy for weaning ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This is due to a number of factors including prognosis, optimal healthcare resource utilisation, and safety of healthcare workers when performing such a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure. Methods Literature review and proposed practical guideline based on the experience of a tertiary healthcare institution with 195 critical care admissions for COVID-19 up until 4th April 2020. Results A synthesis of the current international literature and reported experience is presented with respect to prognosis, viral load and staff safety, thus leading to a pragmatic recommendation that tracheostomy is not performed until at least 14 days after endotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients. Practical steps to minimise aerosol generation in percutaneous tracheostomy are outlined and we describe the process and framework for setting up a dedicated tracheostomy team. Conclusion In selected COVID-19 patients, there is a role for tracheostomy to aid in weaning and optimise healthcare resource utilisation. Both percutaneous and open techniques can be performed safely with careful modifications to technique and appropriate enhanced personal protective equipment. ORL-HNS surgeons can play a valuable role in forming tracheostomy teams to support critical care teams during this global pandemic.

Purpose COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation can overwhelm existing bed capacity. We aimed to better understand the factors that influence the trajectory of tracheostomy care in this population to facilitate capacity planning and improve outcomes. Methods We conducted an observational cohort study of patients in a high-volume centre in the worst-affected region of the UK including all patients that underwent tracheostomy for COVID-19 pneumonitis ventilatory wean from 1st March 2020 to 10th May 2020. The primary outcome was time from insertion to decannulation. The analysis utilised Cox regression to account for patients that are still progressing through their tracheostomy pathway. Results At the point of analysis, a median 21 days (IQR 15-28) post-tracheostomy and 39 days (IQR 32-45) post-intubation, 35/69 (57.4%) patients had been decannulated a median of 17 days (IQR 12-20.5) post-insertion. The overall median age was 55 (IQR 48-61) with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. In Cox regression analysis, FiO 2 at tracheostomy ≥ 0.4 (HR 1.80; 95% CI 0.89-3.60; p = 0.048) and last pre-tracheostomy peak cough flow (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.78-4.45; p = 0.001) were independent variables associated with prolonged time to decannulation. Conclusion Higher FiO 2 at tracheostomy and higher pre-tracheostomy peak cough flow are associated with increased delay in COVID-19 tracheostomy patient decannulation. These finding comprise the most comprehensive report of COVID-19 tracheostomy decannulation to date and will assist service planning for future peaks of this pandemic.

We have demonstrated that NIPF does not correlate with the SNOT-22 disease-specific questionnaire, although both outcomes significantly improve postoperatively. At present, we are still lacking a clinically accurate objective measure of nasal function for the evaluation of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty surgery.

ObjectivesTracheostomy for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation remains a matter of debate. This study analysed the timing and outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy, and reports our experience of a dedicated ENT–anaesthetics department led tracheostomy team.MethodA prospective single-centre observational study was conducted of patients undergoing tracheostomy, who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis, between 21st March and 20th May 2020.ResultsEighty-one patients underwent tracheostomy after a median (interquartile range) of 16 (13–20) days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Median follow-up duration was 32 (23–40) days. Of patients, 86.7 per cent were successfully liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation in a median (interquartile range) of 12 (7–16) days. Moreover, 68.7 per cent were subsequently discharged from hospital. On univariate analysis, there was no difference in outcomes between early (before day 14) and late (day 14 or later) tracheostomy. The mortality rate was 8.6 per cent and no deaths were tracheostomy related.ConclusionOutcomes appear favourable when patients are carefully selected. Percutaneous tracheostomy performed via a multidisciplinary approach, with appropriate training, was safe and optimised healthcare resource utilisation.