ABSTRACT
Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either "early" (within 14 d of intubation) or "late" (more than 14 d after intubation). DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, -16 to -8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, -23 to -9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, -31 to -12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either “early” (within 14 d of intubation) or “late” (more than 14 d after intubation). DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, –16 to –8;p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, –23 to –9 d;p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, –31 to –12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0;95% CI, 1.8–5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity.
Subject(s)
Blood Component Transfusion , COVID-19/therapy , Resuscitation , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Aged , Blood Coagulation , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/pathology , Endothelium/pathology , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Resuscitation/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Wounds and Injuries/blood , Wounds and Injuries/pathology , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched limited public health resources beyond measures, particularly at the local level. What started as an interesting report of pneumonia of unknown etiology in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, bloomed into an international crisis by mid-January 2020. However, it was not until late January, when the first case was reported in the United States, that a new reality took shape for US public health agencies. After all, severe acute respiratory syndrome never made it to this country, and the only 2 cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome here were imported and never spread. Local public health agencies are notoriously short-staffed and underfunded. Therefore, when a crisis looms, personnel from a multitude of areas within the agencies are called upon to help out. Under its innovative and forward-thinking leadership, the St. Louis County Department of Health internally implemented the Incident Command System, a component of the National Incident Management System. While reassignment of individuals to new responsibilities under a new and temporary reporting structure did not always go perfectly, Incident Command System kept its promise to be adaptable to a fast-evolving situation, to clearly outline needed areas of responsibility, and to provide scaffolding that kept the Department of Health functional in chaotic times. It was able to be implemented quickly within hours of the first confirmed COVID-19 case in St. Louis County and enhanced the quality and timeliness of the public health response. This experience is being shared to provide a model of how organizations with limited personnel can use the Incident Command System to reorganize and meet unexpected challenges with increased success.