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

Rovira, Aleix; Tricklebank, Stephen; Šurda, Pavol; Whebell, Stephen; Zhang, Joe; Takhar, Arun; Yeung, Elizabeth; Fan, Kathleen; Ahmed, Imran; Hopkins, Phillip; Dawson, Deborah; Ball, Jonathan; Kumar, Ram; Khaliq, Waqas; Simó, Ricard; Arora, Asit

doi:10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1

Cited by 27 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of studies were performed in the United States (US), accounting for 33.3% of all included studies. The United Kingdom (UK) provided 9 studies [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] , Spain 7 studies [32][33][34][35][36][37][38] , Italy 6 studies [39][40][41][42][43][44] , China 3 studies [45][46][47] , and India 1 study 48 .…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…37 studies included mortality data, irrespective of subgrouping. Of the 3876 patients included across these 37 studies, 824 patients had died by the time of follow-up [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][41][42][43][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] . Only 14 studies explicitly reported a mean follow-up duration, giving a combined weighted mean of 42.03 days (SD 26.43) 24,26,27,30,33,37,42,43,48,50,52,56,…”

Section: Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heterogeneity was found to be substantial, with I 2 95% [95%CI 94.4%-96.4%](p < 0.0001; supplementary figure 2). Mean time to decannulation was reported in 19 of the 39 studies, identifying an overall weighted mean J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f time from intubation to decannulation of 17.70 days (SD 11.31) [25][26][27][28][30][31][32][33]38,39,41,43,46,48,49,51,52,[55][56][57]60 .…”

Section: Decannulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…36 studies reported on the distribution of tracheostomy performed across the studied population, accounting for a total of 3744 patients [23][24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32][33]35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]54,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] . Of 3744 patients, 2179 were performed as surgical procedures, 1457 as percutaneous and 108 as novel/hybrid procedures (table 3).…”

Section: Percutaneous Versus Surgical Tracheostomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 studies provided mortality data on surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy, for a total of 250 percutaneous tracheostomies and 172 surgical tracheostomies 27,46,54,56 . 40 patients who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy died during the follow-up period, whilst 16 surgical tracheostomy patients died.…”

Section: Percutaneous Versus Surgical Tracheostomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients

Ferro

Kotecha

Auzinger

et al. 2021

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decannulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Percutaneous Versus Surgical Tracheostomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Percutaneous Versus Surgical Tracheostomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients

Ferro

Kotecha

Auzinger

et al. 2021

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Association of Tracheostomy With Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Health Care Professionals

Staibano

Levin

McHugh

et al. 2021

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality tracheotomy care can be maintained for non‐COVID patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Tucker

Ruszkay

Goyal

et al. 2022

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective(s) To analyze changes in tracheotomy practices at the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and determine if quality patient care was maintained. Methods This was a single institution retrospective study that included patients undergoing tracheotomy from May 2019 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups, pre‐COVID and post‐COVID. Only three patients tested positive for COVID‐19, and they were excluded from the study. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Statistical analyses were performed using 2‐tailed independent t tests, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests, Chi‐Square tests, and Kaplan–Meier curves. Results There were 118 patients in the pre‐COVID group and 91 patients in the post‐COVID group. The main indication for tracheotomy in both groups was prolonged intubation. There were no significant differences in overall length of stay, time to tracheotomy, duration of tracheotomy procedure, or time to initial tracheotomy change between the two groups. Due to protocols implemented at our institution to limit viral transmission, there were significant increases in the percent of tracheotomies performed in the OR ( p = .02), and those performed via open technique ( p = .04). Additionally, the median time to decannulation significantly decreased in the post‐COVID group ( p = .02). Conclusion Several variables regarding the timing of patient care showed no significant differences between groups which demonstrates that quality patient care was maintained. It is important to note that this data was collected early in the Pandemic, and additional trends may become apparent over time. Level of evidence 4.

show abstract

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

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients

Association of Tracheostomy With Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Among Health Care Professionals

Quality tracheotomy care can be maintained for non‐COVID patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About