IMPORTANCE Decision-making in the timing of tracheostomy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 has centered on the intersection of long-standing debates on the benefits of early vs late tracheostomy, assumptions about timelines of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, and concern over risk to surgeons performing tracheostomy. Multiple consensus guidelines recommend avoiding or delaying tracheostomy, without evidence to indicate anticipated improvement in outcomes as a result.OBJECTIVE To assess outcomes from early tracheostomy in the airway management of patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA retrospective medical record review was completed of 148 patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation at a single tertiary-care medical center in New York City from March 1 to May 7, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Open or percutaneous tracheostomy.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were time from symptom onset to (1) endotracheal intubation, (2) tracheostomy; time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy; time from tracheostomy to (1) tracheostomy tube downsizing, (2) decannulation; total time on mechanical ventilation; and total length of stay. RESULTSParticipants included 148 patients, 120 men and 28 women, with an overall mean (SD) age of 58.1 (15.8) years. Mean (SD; median) time from symptom onset to intubation was 10.57 (6.58; 9) days; from symptom onset to tracheostomy, 22.76 (8.84; 21) days; and from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, 12.23 (6.82; 12) days. The mean (SD; median) time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was 33.49 (18.82; 27) days; from tracheostomy to first downsize, 23.02 (13.76; 19) days; and from tracheostomy to decannulation, 30.16 (16.00; 26) days. The mean (SD; median) length of stay for all patients was 51. 29 (23.66; 45) days. Timing of tracheostomy was significantly associated with length of stay: median length of stay was 40 days in those who underwent early tracheostomy (within 10 days of endotracheal intubation) and 49 days in those who underwent late tracheostomy (median difference, −8; 95% CI, −15 to −1). In a competing risks model with death as the competing risk, the late tracheostomy group was 16% less likely to discontinue mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study from the first 2 months of the pandemic in New York City provides an opportunity to reconsider guidelines for tracheostomy for patients with COVID-19. Findings demonstrated noninferiority of early tracheostomy and challenges recommendations to categorically delay or avoid tracheostomy in this patient population. When aligned with emerging evidence about the timeline of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, this approach may optimize outcomes from tracheostomy while keeping clinicians safe.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7–12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16–24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34–5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06–0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01–2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, –15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Guidelines have been written during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to guide management of tracheostomy, particularly when and how to perform it. In the early absence of systematic data from the confounding clinical symptomatologies arising from this novel virus, these guidelines represent the consensus of experts based on opinion and historical experience. Nearly all, including 2 published in this journal, advise avoiding or delaying tracheostomy, because the risk of transmission of disease to surgeons, nurses, and ancillary staff is presumed high, as COVID-19 airway secretions are presumed to be unusually virulent. 1,2 We respectfully disagree with recommendations to delay tracheostomy, or to make it a ''rare event,'' in the management of COVID-19 patients. We analyzed our data from the first 2 months of the pandemic in New York City, from 148 patients who underwent tracheostomy at this institution.

This study provides new insight into laryngeal anatomy and further data for developing a reliable surgical approach.

No abstract

This case demonstrates a rare etiology for nasal obstruction that may complicate the workup, evaluation, and management of such a patient. It highlights the ways in which a rare diagnosis adds complexity to the workup and management of a patient with nasal obstruction, and serves as an important reminder about rarer pathologies that can present in an everyday clinic.

No abstract

Objectives: Prognostic information about the return of vocal fold mobility in patients with iatrogenic unilateral vocal fold immobility (UVFI) can help with informed decisions about temporary and permanent treatment options. Although many variables can influence the likelihood of recovery, clinical experience suggests that cervical versus thoracic injury is a determining factor. The purpose of this study was to compare recovery rates from UVFI between cervical and thoracic injuries. Methods: A retrospective review of the medical record was performed on all adult patients diagnosed with complete iatrogenic UVFI from 2005 to 2015 (n = 923). Patients with incomplete data and etiologies of idiopathic, malignancy, or stenosis were excluded, leaving a study cohort of 502 patients who were categorized as having UVFI after cervical (n = 329) or thoracic (n = 173) injury. Data regarding site of iatrogenic injury (cervical vs thoracic), mobility status, and time interval to recovery or surgical intervention were recorded and compared using χ 2 analyses. Results: Overall, 15% of patients recovered vocal fold mobility at a median of 4.1 months. Patients with cervical injury (65 of 329 [20%]) were significantly more likely to recover mobility than patients with thoracic injury (11 of 173 [6.4%]) (odds ratio, 3.63). The cervical cohort contained more women (68% vs 31%) and was younger (mean age, 60.4 ± 13.8 vs 64.1 ± 16.1 years; Cohen's D = 0.25). Conclusions: Patients with cervical injuries resulting in UVFI are 4 times more likely to recover mobility than patients with thoracic injuries. This information can be valuable in counseling patients with UVFI and may affect clinical decision making.