Assessing mortality differences across acute respiratory failure management strategies in Covid-19.

PURPOSE: Prolonged observation could avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and related risks in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF) compared to initiating early IMV. We aimed to determine the association between ARF management strategy and in-hospital mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Weill Cornell Covid-19 registry who developed ARF between March 5 - March 25, 2020 were exposed to an early IMV strategy; between March 26 - April 1, 2020 to an intermediate strategy; and after April 2 to prolonged observation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model in-hospital mortality and test an interaction between ARF management strategy and modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA). RESULTS: Among 632 patients with ARF, 24% of patients in the early IMV strategy died versus 28% in prolonged observation. At lower mSOFA, prolonged observation was associated with lower mortality compared to early IMV (at mSOFA = 0, HR 0.16 [95% CI 0.04-0.57]). Mortality risk increased in the prolonged observation strategy group with each point increase in mSOFA score (HR 1.29 [95% CI 1.10-1.51], p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In Covid-19 ARF, prolonged observation was associated with a mortality benefit at lower mSOFA scores, and increased mortality at higher mSOFA scores compared to early IMV.

Percutaneous and Open Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: The Weill Cornell Experience in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: Report long-term tracheostomy outcomes in patients with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected data. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were extracted for adults with COVID-19 undergoing percutaneous or open tracheostomy between April 4, 2020 and June 2, 2020 at a major medical center in New York City. The primary endpoint was weaning from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included sedation weaning, decannulation, and discharge. RESULTS: One hundred one patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 percutaneous (48%) and 53 open (52%), after a median intubation time of 24 days (IQR 20, 31). The most common complication was minor bleeding (n = 18, 18%). The all-cause mortality rate was 15% and no deaths were attributable to the tracheostomy. Eighty-three patients (82%) were weaned off mechanical ventilation, 88 patients (87%) were weaned off sedation, and 72 patients (71%) were decannulated. Censored median times from tracheostomy to sedation and ventilator weaning were 8 (95% CI 6-11) and 18 (95% CI 14-22) days, respectively (uncensored: 7 and 15 days). Median time from tracheostomy to decannulation was 36 (95% CI 32-47) days (uncensored: 32 days). Of those decannulated, 82% were decannulated during their index admission. There were no differences in outcomes or complication rates between percutaneous and open tracheostomy. Likelihood of discharge from the ICU was inversely related to intubation time, though the clinical relevance of this was small (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.943-0.998; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Tracheostomy by either percutaneous or open technique facilitated sedation and ventilator weaning in patients with COVID-19 after prolonged intubation. Additional study on the optimal timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E2849-E2856, 2021.

Percutaneous and Open Tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19: Comparison and Outcomes of an Institutional Series in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the safety, efficacy, and early results of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 and determine whether differences exist between percutaneous and open methods. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Prolonged respiratory failure is common in symptomatic patients with COVID-19, the disease process caused by infection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Tracheostomy, although posing potential risk to the operative team and other healthcare workers, may be beneficial for safe weaning of sedation and ventilator support. However, short- and long-term outcomes remain largely unknown. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy at a major medical center in New York City between April 4 and April 30, 2020 was reviewed. The primary endpoint was need for continued mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, sedation weaning, and need for intensive care unit (ICU) level of care. Patient characteristics, perioperative conditions, and outcomes between percutaneous and open groups were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 67 consecutive patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 males and 19 females with a median age of 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) 52-72]. Two surgeons alternated techniques, with 35 tracheostomies performed percutaneously and 32 via an open approach. The median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 23 days (IQR 20-26). At a median follow-up of 26 days, 52 patients (78%) no longer required mechanical ventilation and 58 patients (87%) were off continuous sedation. Five patients (7.5%) died of systemic causes. There were 11 total complications (16%) in 10 patients, most of which involved minor bleeding. There were no significant differences in outcomes between percutaneous and open methods. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy under apneic conditions by either percutaneous or open technique can be safely performed in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Tracheostomy facilitated weaning from continuous intravenous sedation and mechanical ventilation. Continued follow-up of these patients to ascertain long-term outcome data is ongoing.