The authors reply

We read the letter to the editor by Brenner et al in response to our article, Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy for coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, with great interest published in Critical Care Medicine. We appreciate the comments made by the letter’s authors, and we would like to address their main points

Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Microbial signatures in the lower airways of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients associated with poor clinical outcome.

Respiratory failure is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. There are no validated lower airway biomarkers to predict clinical outcome. We investigated whether bacterial respiratory infections were associated with poor clinical outcome of COVID-19 in a prospective, observational cohort of 589 critically ill adults, all of whom required mechanical ventilation. For a subset of 142 patients who underwent bronchoscopy, we quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, analysed the lower respiratory tract microbiome using metagenomics and metatranscriptomics and profiled the host immune response. Acquisition of a hospital-acquired respiratory pathogen was not associated with fatal outcome. Poor clinical outcome was associated with lower airway enrichment with an oral commensal (Mycoplasma salivarium). Increased SARS-CoV-2 abundance, low anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and a distinct host transcriptome profile of the lower airways were most predictive of mortality. Our data provide evidence that secondary respiratory infections do not drive mortality in COVID-19 and clinical management strategies should prioritize reducing viral replication and maximizing host responses to SARS-CoV-2.

ATS Core Curriculum 2020. Adult Pulmonary Medicine.

The American Thoracic Society Core Curriculum updates clinicians annually in adult and pediatric pulmonary disease, medical critical care, and sleep medicine in a 3- to 4-year recurring cycle of topics. The topics of the 2020 Pulmonary Core Curriculum include pulmonary vascular disease (submassive pulmonary embolism, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and pulmonary hypertension) and pulmonary infections (community-acquired pneumonia, pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria, opportunistic infections in immunocompromised hosts, and coronavirus disease [COVID-19]).

Early Outcomes From Early Tracheostomy for Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Decision-making in the timing of tracheostomy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has centered on the intersection of long-standing debates on the benefits of early vs late tracheostomy, assumptions about timelines of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, and concern over risk to surgeons performing tracheostomy. Multiple consensus guidelines recommend avoiding or delaying tracheostomy, without evidence to indicate anticipated improvement in outcomes as a result. Objective: To assess outcomes from early tracheostomy in the airway management of patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective medical record review was completed of 148 patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation at a single tertiary-care medical center in New York City from March 1 to May 7, 2020. Interventions: Open or percutaneous tracheostomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were time from symptom onset to (1) endotracheal intubation, (2) tracheostomy; time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy; time from tracheostomy to (1) tracheostomy tube downsizing, (2) decannulation; total time on mechanical ventilation; and total length of stay. Results: Participants included 148 patients, 120 men and 28 women, with an overall mean (SD) age of 58.1 (15.8) years. Mean (SD; median) time from symptom onset to intubation was 10.57 (6.58; 9) days; from symptom onset to tracheostomy, 22.76 (8.84; 21) days; and from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, 12.23 (6.82; 12) days. The mean (SD; median) time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was 33.49 (18.82; 27) days; from tracheostomy to first downsize, 23.02 (13.76; 19) days; and from tracheostomy to decannulation, 30.16 (16.00; 26) days. The mean (SD; median) length of stay for all patients was 51.29 (23.66; 45) days. Timing of tracheostomy was significantly associated with length of stay: median length of stay was 40 days in those who underwent early tracheostomy (within 10 days of endotracheal intubation) and 49 days in those who underwent late tracheostomy (median difference, -8; 95% CI, -15 to -1). In a competing risks model with death as the competing risk, the late tracheostomy group was 16% less likely to discontinue mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study from the first 2 months of the pandemic in New York City provides an opportunity to reconsider guidelines for tracheostomy for patients with COVID-19. Findings demonstrated noninferiority of early tracheostomy and challenges recommendations to categorically delay or avoid tracheostomy in this patient population. When aligned with emerging evidence about the timeline of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, this approach may optimize outcomes from tracheostomy while keeping clinicians safe.

Novel Percutaneous Tracheostomy for Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide pandemic, with many patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy is not recommended by current guidelines as it is considered a superspreading event owing to aerosolization that unduly risks health care workers. METHODS: Patients with severe COVID-19 who were on mechanical ventilation for 5 days or longer were evaluated for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. We developed a novel percutaneous tracheostomy technique that placed the bronchoscope alongside the endotracheal tube, not inside it. That improved visualization during the procedure and continued standard mechanical ventilation after positioning the inflated endotracheal tube cuff in the distal trachea. This technique offers a significant mitigation for the risk of virus aerosolization during the procedure. RESULTS: From March 10 to April 15, 2020, 270 patients with COVID-19 required invasive mechanical ventilation at New York University Langone Health Manhattan's campus; of those, 98 patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. The mean time from intubation to the procedure was 10.6 ± 5 days. Currently, 32 patients (33%) do not require mechanical ventilatory support, 19 (19%) have their tracheostomy tube downsized, and 8 (8%) were decannulated. Forty patients (41%) remain on full ventilator support, and 19 (19%) are weaning from mechanical ventilation. Seven patients (7%) died as a result of respiratory and multiorgan failure. Tracheostomy-related bleeding was the most common complication (5 patients). None of health care providers has had symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our percutaneous tracheostomy technique appears to be safe and effective for COVID-19 patients and safe for health care workers.