Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study.

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.

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study

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.

International cooperation group of emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed working conditions for emergency surgical teams around the world. International surgical societies have issued clinical recommendations to optimize surgical management. This international study aimed to assess the degree of emergency surgical teams' adoption of recommendations during the pandemic. METHODS: Emergency surgical team members from over 30 countries were invited to answer an anonymous, prospective, online survey to assess team organization, PPE-related aspects, OR preparations, anesthesiologic considerations, and surgical management for emergency surgery during the pandemic. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-thirty-four questionnaires were returned (N = 134) from 26 countries, of which 88% were surgeons, 7% surgical trainees, 4% anesthetists. 81% of the respondents got involved with COVID-19 crisis management. Social media were used by 91% of the respondents to access the recommendations, and 66% used videoconference tools for team communication. 51% had not received PPE training before the pandemic, 73% reported equipment shortage, and 55% informed about re-use of N95/FPP2/3 respirators. Dedicated COVID operating areas were cited by 77% of the respondents, 44% had performed emergency surgical procedures on COVID-19 patients, and over half (52%), favored performing laparoscopic over open surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Surgical team members have responded with leadership to the COVID-19 pandemic, with crisis management principles. Social media and videoconference have been used by the vast majority to access guidelines or to communicate during social distancing. The level of adoption of current recommendations is high for organizational aspects and surgical management, but not so for PPE training and availability, and anesthesiologic considerations.

[Emergency Surgery and Trauma Care During COVID-19 Pandemic. Recommendations of the Spanish Association of Surgeons]. / Atención de la urgencia quirúrgica durante la pandemia COVID-19. Recomendaciones de la Asociación Española de Cirujanos.

New coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) has determined the necessity of reorganization in many centers all over the world. Spain, as an epicenter of the disease, has been forced to assume health policy changes in all the territory. However, and from the beginning of the pandemic, every center attending surgical urgencies had to guarantee the continuous coverage adopting correct measures to maintain the excellence of quality of care. This document resumes general guidelines for emergency surgery and trauma care, obtained from the available bibliography and evaluated by a subgroup of professionals designated from the general group of investigators Cirugía-AEC-COVID-19 from the Spanish Association of Surgeons, directed to minimize professional exposure, to contemplate pandemic implications over different urgent perioperative scenarios and to adjust decision making to the occupational pressure caused by COVID-19 patients.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Surgical Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic has exposed surgeons to hazardous working conditions, imposing the need for personal protective equipment (PPE) use during surgery. The use of such equipment may affect their non-technical skills, augment fatigue, and affect performance. This study aimed to assess the surgeons' perceptions of the impact of wearing PPE during emergency surgery throughout the pandemic. METHODS: An international cooperation group conducted an anonymous online survey among surgeons from over 30 countries, to assess perceptions about the impact of PPE use on non-technical skills, overall comfort, decision making, and surgical performance during emergency surgery on COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Responses to the survey (134) were received from surgeons based on 26 countries. The vast majority (72%) were males. More than half of the respondents (54%) felt that their surgical performance was hampered with PPE. Visual impairment was reported by 63%, whereas 54% had communication impediments. Less than half (48%) felt protected with the use of PPE, and the same proportion perceived that the use of such equipment influenced their decision making. Decreased overall comfort was cited by 66%, and 82% experienced increased surgical fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons perceived impediment for both visibility and communication, and other non-technical skills while using PPE on emergency surgery in COVID-19 patients. Their perceived lack of protection and comfort and increased fatigue may have inhibited their optimal surgical performance. More attention should be placed in the design of more user-friendly equipment, given the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic.