Percutaneous Tracheostomy With a Demistifier Canopy in the COVID-19 Era: A Safe Technique in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) is a safe technique that is performed frequently by otolaryngologists and intensivists. New challenges have been identified in order to maintain the safety of this procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. A novel approach, using a modified demistifier canopy, was developed during the first wave of the pandemic and implemented for 17 consecutive percutaneous tracheostomies in order to enhance procedural safety. METHODS: A protocol was developed after performing a literature review of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. A multidisciplinary tracheostomy team was established, including the departments of otolaryngology, critical care, and respiratory therapy. Simulation was performed prior to each PT, and postoperative debriefings were done. RESULTS: A protocol and technical description of PT using a modified demistifier canopy covering was written and video documented. Data were collected on 17 patients who underwent this procedure safely in our tertiary care hospital. There were no procedure-related complications, and no evidence of COVID-19 transmission to any member of the health care team during the study period. CONCLUSION: As patients continue to recover from COVID-19, their need for tracheostomy will increase. The technique described provides a safe, multidisciplinary method of performing PT in COVID-19 patients.

Bleeding Hazard of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients Supported With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Tracheostomy usually is performed to aid weaning from mechanical ventilation and facilitate rehabilitation and secretion clearance. Little is known about the safety of percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with severe COVID-19 supported on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). This study aimed to investigate the bleeding risk of bedside percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 infection supported with VV-ECMO. DESIGN: A Retrospective review of electronic data for routine care of patients on ECMO. SETTING: Tertiary, university-affiliated national ECMO center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy while on VV-ECMO support. INTERVENTIONS: No intervention was conducted during this study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Electronic medical records of 16 confirmed patients with COVID-19 who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy while on VV-ECMO support, including patient demographics, severity of illness, clinical variables, procedural complications, and outcomes, were compared with 16 non-COVID-19 patients. The SPSS statistical software was used for statistical analysis. The demographic data were compared using the chi-square test, and normality assumption was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The indications for tracheostomy in all the patients were prolonged mechanical ventilation and sedation management. None of the patients suffered a life-threatening procedural complication within 48 hours. Moderate-to-severe bleeding was similar in both groups. There was no difference in 30- and 90-days mortality between both groups. As per routine screening results, none of the staff involved contracted COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series, percutaneous tracheostomy during VV-ECMO in patients with COVID-19 appeared to be safe and did not pose additional risks to patients or healthcare workers.

Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Patients Following Percutaneous Versus Open Surgical Tracheostomy: An Analysis of Clinical and Prognostic Indicators.

Background and objective Tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients can be performed in cases of prolonged intubation or in patients with a known difficult airway. Tracheostomy is usually performed by two main approaches: open surgery or percutaneous endoscopic insertion. However, few studies have compared these two techniques in severe COVID-19 patients. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of the two main methods of tracheostomy among patients with severe COVID-19 infection. We also aimed to investigate the impact of various lab data and medications on patient outcomes. Materials and methods We included all symptomatic severe COVID-19 patients in need of prolonged mechanical ventilation. We examined the patients' past medical history, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis, laboratory workups, and medication history. We calculated the PaO2/FiO2 ratio as an index to evaluate the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Results During the study period, 72 patients with severe COVID-19 underwent tracheostomy tube insertion. The average age of participants was 58.93 ±15.27 years; 44 (61.1%) were male and 28 (38.9%) were female. Of note, 54 (75.0%) patients passed away and only 18 (25.0%) survived. Among the survivors, 13 (29.5%) were men and five (17.9%) were women. The study showed a significantly higher mortality rate (23, 92.0%) among patients who underwent open surgery compared to those who received percutaneous surgery (31, 65.9%) (p=0.01). Conclusion Based on our findings, percutaneous endoscopic tracheostomy seems to be the superior approach compared to open tracheostomy. Other predictive factors associated with patient outcomes included levels of HCO3, FiO2, PaCO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio.

The Impact of Different Ventilatory Strategies on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to investigate the impact of different ventilator strategies (non-invasive ventilation (NIV); invasive MV with tracheal tube (TT) and with tracheostomy (TS) on outcomes (mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay) in patients with COVID-19. We also assessed the impact of timing of percutaneous tracheostomy and other risk factors on mortality. METHODS: The retrospective cohort included 868 patients with severe COVID-19. Demographics, MV parameters and duration, and ICU mortality were collected. RESULTS: MV was provided in 530 (61.1%) patients, divided into three groups: NIV (n = 139), TT (n = 313), and TS (n = 78). Prevalence of tracheostomy was 14.7%, and ICU mortality was 90.4%, 60.2%, and 30.2% in TT, TS, and NIV groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Tracheostomy increased the chances of survival and being discharged from ICU (OR 6.3, p < 0.001) despite prolonging ICU stay compared to the TT group (22.2 days vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.001) without differences in survival rates between early and late tracheostomy. Patients who only received invasive MV had higher odds of survival compared to those receiving NIV in ICU prior to invasive MV (OR 2.7, p = 0.001). The odds of death increased with age (OR 1.032, p < 0.001), obesity (1.58, p = 0.041), chronic renal disease (1.57, p = 0.019), sepsis (2.8, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (1.7, p = 0.049), multiple organ dysfunction (3.2, p < 0.001), and ARDS (3.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous tracheostomy compared to MV via TT significantly increased survival and the rate of discharge from ICU, without differences between early or late tracheostomy.

Aerosol-generating procedure; percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare percutaneous tracheostomy (PCT) and surgical tracheostomy's aerosol and droplet scattering by using a particle counter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out with 35 patients between October 2020 and June 2021. All personal protective equipment was provided to protect healthcare workers. Measurements were made in the 5 s period before the tracheal incision and the 5 s period after the tracheal incision. RESULTS: The mean age of the 15 female and 20 male patients in this study was 68.88 ± 13.48 years old (range: 33-95 years old). Patients were intubated for an average of 22 days. Particle amounts were found to be significantly higher at 5 µm (p = 0.003) and 10 µm (p = 0.012) during PCT. In surgical tracheostomy, there was no significant increase in the number of particles. When the particle measurement values of both methods were compared with each other, there was a significantly more particle scattering in PCT than in surgical tracheotomy at 0.3 µm (p = 0.034), 5 µm (p = 0.001), and 10 µm (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: According to the data in our study, a surgical tracheotomy was not identified as an aerosol-generating procedure. Considering the risk of airborne transmission may increase due to viral mutations, we have shown that surgical tracheostomy may be more appropriate in patients who need a tracheostomy. Of course, the use of personal protective equipment during these processes is very important.

Outcomes and Timing of Bedside Percutaneous Tracheostomy of COVID-19 Patients over a Year in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and timing of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients are still controversial. PDT is considered a high-risk procedure for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare workers (HCWs). The present study analyzed the optimal timing of PDT, the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PDT, and the safety of HCWs performing PDT. METHODS: Of the 133 COVID-19 patients who underwent PDT in our ICU from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, 13 patients were excluded, and 120 patients were enrolled. A trained medical team was dedicated to the PDT procedure. Demographic, clinical history, and outcome data were collected. Patients who underwent PDT were stratified into two groups: an early group (PDT ≤ 12 days after orotracheal intubation (OTI) and a late group (>12 days after OTI). An HCW surveillance program was also performed. RESULTS: The early group included 61 patients and the late group included 59 patients. The early group patients had a shorter ICU length of stay and fewer days of mechanical ventilation than the late group (p < 0.001). On day 7 after tracheostomy, early group patients required fewer intravenous anesthetic drugs and experienced an improvement of the ventilation parameters PaO2/FiO2 ratio, PEEP, and FiO2 (p < 0.001). No difference in the case fatality ratio between the two groups was observed. No SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported in the HCWs performing the PDTs. CONCLUSIONS: PDT was safe and effective for COVID-19 patients since it improved respiratory support parameters, reduced ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and optimized the weaning process. The procedure was safe for all HCWs involved in the dedicated medical team. The development of standardized early PDT protocols should be implemented, and PDT could be considered a first-line approach in ICU COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation.

A Study on the Safety of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Novel Corona Virus 2 (SARS-nCoV2) Infection: A Single-Center Observational Cohort Study in a CoVID Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: We studied the safety of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PCDT) in severe acute respiratory syndrome novel coronavirus 2 (SARS-nCoV2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 01 March 20 to 30 November 2020, 1635 required hospital admission of which 145 (9%) required intensive (ICU) care. The primary outcomes are mortality and secondary outcomes were duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and days required for decannulation. RESULTS: Out of the 145 (9%), 107 (73.7%) were males (mean 61.4 years, median body mass index (BMI) of 28.2 kg/m2), and 38 (26.2%) were females (mean 58.10 years, median BMI of 31.2 kg/m2). In the cohort of 80 (55.17%) requiring IMV, 19 (23.7%) died within 72 hours and were not included in the study, 37 (group "NT") and 24 (group "T") had a median duration of ventilation of 9 d (IQR, 6-11) and 12 d (IQR, 11-17.25) respectively. Patients in group "T" underwent PCDT based on clinical criteria (fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of ≤ 50% with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of ≤ 10 cms of H2O with stable hemodynamics), and 16 (66.7%) had survived. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) does not need to be negative, and none of the health care workers (HCW's) were infected. The Cox-hazard ratio [HR] is 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.09, 0.41) with a P-value of <0.001, 83 (57.2%) were discharged with a mortality of 42.8%. CONCLUSIONS: PCDT is safe and effective in patients anticipated in need of prolonged mechanical ventilation.

A Safe Approach to Percutaneous Tracheostomy for COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a burden on critical care facilities worldwide. Patients who remain critically unwell with COVID-19 require prolonged periods of ventilation, and the burden of both the resources during a pandemic and the slow respiratory wean must be managed. Percutaneous tracheostomies are commonplace in long-term intensive care patients, yet little is known about their role in COVID-19, particularly how operator safety is maintained during the procedure. Here, we describe an approach designed to minimize cross-infection of the operators undertaking percutaneous tracheostomies within this subset of patients. Focus should be on non-technical skills, prolonged periods of pre-oxygenation, and minimal ventilation during the procedure to minimize the risk of aerosolization generated from an open breathing system. Our modified technique demonstrates successful early experiences with no operators testing positive for COVID-19 or developing symptoms following any performed procedure.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire COVID-19 Tracheostomy cohort was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of complications, mortality, time to decannulation and ventilatory weaning. Outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous and outcomes relative to tracheostomy timing were also analysed. Studies reporting outcome data on patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Outcome data were analysed using a random-effects model. From 1016 unique studies, 39 articles reporting outcomes for a total of 3929 patients were included for meta-analysis. Weighted mean follow-up time was 42.03±26 days post-tracheostomy. Meta-analysis showed that 61.2% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation [95%CI 52.6%-69.5%], 44.2% of patients were decannulated [95%CI 33.96%-54.67%], and cumulative mortality was found to be 19.23% [95%CI 15.2%-23.6%] across the entire tracheostomy cohort. The cumulative incidence of complications was 14.24% [95%CI 9.6%-19.6%], with bleeding accounting for 52% of all complications. No difference was found in incidence of mortality (RR1.96; p=0.34), decannulation (RR1.35, p=0.27), complications (RR0.75, p=0.09) and time to decannulation (SMD 0.46, p=0.68) between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. Moreover, no difference was found in mortality (RR1.57, p=0.43) between early and late tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy did not predict time to decannulation. Ten confirmed nosocomial staff infections were reported from 1398 tracheostomies. This study provides an overview of outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, and contributes to our understanding of tracheostomy decisions in this patient cohort.

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.

Percutaneous tracheostomy for long-term ventilated COVID-19-patients: rationale and first clinical-safe for all-experience.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection has resulted in thousands of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs and treated with mechanical ventilation. Percutaneous tracheostomy is a well-known technique utilised as a strategy to wean critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation. Worldwide differences exist in terms of methods, operators, and settings, and questions remain regarding timing and indications. If tracheostomy is to be performed in COVID-19 patients, a safe environment is needed for optimal care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present a guidewire dilating forceps tracheostomy procedure in COVID-19 patients that was optimised including apnoea-moments, protective clothing, checklists, and clear protocols. We performed a retrospective analysis of the outcome after tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients between March 2020 and May 2020. RESULTS: The follow-up of the first 16 patients, median age 62 years, revealed a median intubation time until tracheostomy of 18 days and median cannulation time of 20 days. The overall perioperative complication rate and complication rate while cannulated was 19%, mainly superficial bleeding. None of the healthcare providers involved in performing the procedure developed any symptoms of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: This COVID-19-centred strategy based on flexibility, preparation, and cooperation between healthcare providers with different backgrounds facilitated percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients without an increase in the overall complication rate or evidence of risk to healthcare providers. Our findings provide initial evidence that tracheostomy can be performed safely as a standard of care for COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation as was standard practice in ICU patients prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to promote ventilator weaning and patient recovery.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Wake-Up Call for Neurosurgeons to Learn Percutaneous Tracheostomy.

Tracheostomy is a commonly performed operation in neurosurgical patients. It is an aerosol generating procedure and is considered a high-risk operation in times of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Though percutaneous tracheostomy has been around for some time, many neurosurgeons still perform open surgical tracheostomy as they have been trained in doing so and are well versed with the procedure. However, this pandemic is a wake-up call for them to learn a new skill that is simple, quick, and has several advantages over the traditional method.

Percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients: The Miami model.

The surge in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems globally. With the increasing need for critical care resources, tracheostomy can facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation and potentially increase availability of critical care resources. In this case series of three patients, we describe our technique for performing bedside percutaneous tracheostomy on patients with persistently positive SARS-CoV-2 real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We hope to provide proceduralists with a specific method for percutaneous tracheostomies that is both safe for the patient and provider.

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy for saturating influx of COVID-19 patients: Experience of military ENT physicians deployed in Mulhouse, France.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of percutaneous tracheostomy performed under difficult conditions by military ENT physicians during their deployment in the military intensive care field hospital of the French Military Medical Service in Mulhouse to confront the exceptional COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective was to assess reliability and safety for patient and caregivers, with a risk of iatrogenic viral contamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted between March 25 and April 25, 2020, in 47 COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. The inclusion criterion was having undergone percutaneous tracheostomy. RESULTS: Eighteen consecutively included patients had successfully undergone percutaneous tracheostomy despite unfavorable anatomical conditions (short neck: 83.3%, overweight or obese: 88.9%). Median time to completion was 11 days after intubation, with an average duration of 7minutes. The procedure was technically compliant in 83.3% of cases, and considered easy (on self-assessment) in 72.2%, with 2 minor per-procedural complications. No crossover to surgery was required. There was only 1 major post-procedural complication (late hemorrhage). CONCLUSION: This study showed the feasibility of percutaneous tracheostomy by an ENT physician under COVID-19 biohazard conditions. The technique was fast, easy and safe and met safety requirements for patient and staff.

Utility of Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19 and Other Special Considerations.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who become severely ill from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high likelihood of needing prolonged intubation, making tracheostomy a likely consideration. The infectious nature of COVID-19 poses an additional risk of transmission to healthcare workers that should be taken into consideration. METHODS: We explore current literature and recommendations for tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 and look back at previous data from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), the virus responsible for the SARS outbreak of 2003. RESULTS: Given the severity and clinical uncertainty of patients with COVID-19 and the increased risk of transmission to clinicians, careful consideration should be taken prior to performing tracheostomy. If tracheostomy is performed, we recommend a bedside approach to limit exposure time and number of exposed personnel. Bronchoscopy use with a percutaneous approach should be limited in order to decrease viral exposure. CONCLUSION: Thorough preprocedural planning, use of experienced personnel, enhanced personal protective equipment where available, and a thoughtful anesthesia approach are instrumental in maximizing positive patient outcomes while successfully protecting the safety of healthcare personnel. Laryngoscope, 130:2546-2549, 2020.