Outcomes of head and neck cancer management from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the approach and outcomes from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Data collection was performed on a retrospective cohort of patients surgically treated for primary HNC between March and May 2020, using data from two tertiary hospitals: the European Institute of Oncology (Milan) and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London). RESULTS: We included 77 patients with HNC. More patients with COVID-19 were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and had Clavien-Dindo Classification grade I compared to negative patients, respectively (60% vs 22% [p = 0.058] and 40% vs 8% [p = 0.025]). Multivariate logistic regression analyses confirmed our data (p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Sex and age were statistically significantly different (p = 0.05 and <0.001 respectively), showing more male patients (75% vs 53.66%, respectively) and more elderly patients in Italy than in the United Kingdom (patients aged >63 years: 69.44% vs 29.27%). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a large cohort of patients with HNC with nasopharyngeal swab during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Patients with HNC with COVID-19 appeared more likely to develop postsurgical complications and to be taking ACE inhibitors. The preventive measures adopted guaranteed the continuation of therapeutic surgical intervention.

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 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.

Timing of Tracheostomy for Prolonged Respiratory Wean in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Machine Learning Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To propose the optimal timing to consider tracheostomy insertion for weaning of mechanically ventilated patients recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia. We investigated the relationship between duration of mechanical ventilation prior to tracheostomy insertion and in-hospital mortality. In addition, we present a machine learning approach to facilitate decision-making. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted with acute respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019 requiring mechanical ventilation between March 3, 2020, and May 5, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline characteristics and temporal trends in markers of disease severity were prospectively recorded. Tracheostomy was performed for anticipated prolonged ventilatory wean when levels of respiratory support were favorable. Decision tree was constructed using C4.5 algorithm, and its classification performance has been evaluated by a leave-one-out cross-validation technique. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred seventy-six patients required mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure, of which 87 patients (49.4%) underwent tracheostomy. We identified that optimal timing for tracheostomy insertion is between day 13 and day 17. Presence of fibrosis on CT scan (odds ratio, 13.26; 95% CI [3.61-48.91]; p ≤ 0.0001) and Pao2:Fio2 ratio (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI [0.95-0.99]; p = 0.008) were independently associated with tracheostomy insertion. Cox multiple regression analysis showed that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio, 6.56; 95% CI [1.04-41.59]; p = 0.046), ischemic heart disease (hazard ratio, 4.62; 95% CI [1.19-17.87]; p = 0.027), positive end-expiratory pressure (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI [1.02-1.57]; p = 0.034), Pao2:Fio2 ratio (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI [0.97-0.99]; p = 0.003), and C-reactive protein (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI [1-1.01]; p = 0.005) were independent late predictors of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that the optimal window for consideration of tracheostomy for ventilatory weaning is between day 13 and 17. Late predictors of mortality may serve as adverse factors when considering tracheostomy, and our decision tree provides a degree of decision support for clinicians.

Multidisciplinary Tracheostomy Quality Improvement in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Building a Global Learning Community.

OBJECTIVES: To report experience with a global multidisciplinary tracheostomy e-learning initiative. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary panel of experts convened to build a virtual learning community for tracheostomy care, comprising a web-based platform, five distance learning (interactive webinar) sessions, and professional discourse over 12 months. Structured pre- and post-webinar surveys were disseminated to global participants including otolaryngologists, intensivists, nurses, allied health professionals, and patients/caregivers. Data were collected on audio-visual fidelity, demographics, and pre- and post-tutorial assessments regarding experience and skill acquisition. Participants reported confidence levels for NICU, pediatric, adult, and family care, as well as technical skills, communication, learning, assessment, and subdomains. RESULTS: Participants from 197 institutions in 22 countries engaged in the virtual education platform, including otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, respiratory therapists, specialist nurses, patients, and caregivers. Significant improvements were reported in communication (P < .0001), clinical assessments (P < .0001), and clinical governance (P < .0001), with positive impact on pediatric decannulation (P = .0008), adult decannulation (P = .04), and quality improvement (P < .0001). Respondents reported enhanced readiness to integrate knowledge into practice. Barriers included time zones, internet bandwidth, and perceived difficulty of direct clinical translation of highly technical skills. Participants rated the implementation highly in terms of length, ability for discussion, satisfaction, applicability to professional practice, and expertise of discussants (median scores: 4, 4, 4, 4 and 5 out of 5). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual learning has dominated the education landscape during COVID-19 pandemic, but few data are available on its effectiveness. This study demonstrated feasibility of virtual learning for disseminating best practices in tracheostomy, engaging a diverse, multidisciplinary audience. Learning of complex technical skills proved a hurdle, however, suggesting need for hands-on experience for technical mastery. While interactive videoconferencing via webinar affords an engaging and scalable strategy for sharing knowledge, further investigation is needed on clinical outcomes to define effective strategies for experiential online learning and virtual in-service simulations.

Tracheostomy, ventilatory wean, and decannulation in COVID-19 patients.

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, FiO2 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 FiO2 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.

Tracheostomy care and decannulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: Traditional critical care dogma regarding the benefits of early tracheostomy during invasive ventilation has had to be revisited due to the risk of COVID-19 to patients and healthcare staff. Standard practises that have evolved to minimise the risks associated with tracheostomy must be comprehensively reviewed in light of the numerous potential episodes for aerosol generating procedures. We meet the urgent need for safe practise standards by presenting the experience of two major London teaching hospitals, and synthesise our findings into an evidence-based guideline for multidisciplinary care of the tracheostomy patient. METHODS: This is a narrative review presenting the extensive experience of over 120 patients with tracheostomy, with a pragmatic analysis of currently available evidence for safe tracheostomy care in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Tracheostomy care involves many potentially aerosol generating procedures which may pose a risk of viral transmission to staff and patients. We make a series of recommendations to ameliorate this risk through infection control strategies, equipment modification, and individualised decannulation protocols. In addition, we discuss the multidisciplinary collaboration that is absolutely fundamental to safe and effective practise. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 requires a radical rethink of many tenets of tracheostomy care, and controversy continues to exist regarding the optimal techniques to minimise risk to patients and healthcare workers. Safe practise requires a coordinated multidisciplinary team approach to infection control, weaning and decannulation, with integrated processes for continuous prospective data collection and audit.

Recommendation of a practical guideline for safe tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.