Utilisation of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 in England: Patient characteristics, timing and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterise the use of tracheostomy procedures for all COVID-19 critical care patients in England and to understand how patient factors and timing of tracheostomy affected outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using exploratory analysis of hospital administrative data. SETTING: All 500 National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised COVID-19 patients aged ≥18 years in England between 1 March and 31 October 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: This was a retrospective exploratory analysis using the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set. Multilevel modelling was used to explore the relationship between demographic factors, comorbidity and use of tracheostomy and the association between tracheostomy use, tracheostomy timing and the outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 2200 hospitalised COVID-19 patients had a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy utilisation varied across the study period, peaking in April-June 2020. In multivariable modelling, for those admitted to critical care, tracheostomy was most common in those aged 40-79 years, in males and in people of Black and Asian ethnic groups and those with a history of cerebrovascular disease. In critical care patients, tracheostomy was associated with lower odds of mortality (OR: 0.514 [95% CI 0.443 to 0.596], but greater length of stay OR: 41.143 [95% CI 30.979 to 54.642]). In patients that survived, earlier timing of tracheostomy (≤14 days post admission to critical care) was significantly associated with shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy is safe and advantageous for critical care COVID-19 patients. Early tracheostomy may be associated with better outcomes, such as shorter length of stay, compared to late tracheostomy.

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.