Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

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.

Continuity of Cancer Care: The Surgical Experience of Two Large Cancer Hubs in London and Milan.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections.

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, 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.

Tracheostomy intervention in intubated COVID positive patients: A survey of current clinical practice among ENT surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented need for critical care intervention. Prolonged intubation and mechanical ventilation has resulted in the need for tracheostomy in some patients. The purpose of this international survey was to assess optimal timing, technique and outcome for this intervention. METHODS: An online survey was generated. Otorhinolaryngologists from both the United Kingdom and Abroad were polled with regards to their experience of tracheostomy in COVID-19 positive ventilated patients. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 50 respondents from 16 nations. The number of ventilated patients totalled 3403, on average 9.7% required a tracheostomy. This was on average performed on day 14 following intubation. The majority of patients were successfully weaned (mean 7.4 days following tracheostomy). CONCLUSION: The results of this brief survey suggest that tracheostomy is of benefit in selected patients. There was insufficient data to suggest improved outcomes with either percutaneous vs an open surgical technique.

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.