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.

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.