[Percutaneous tracheostomy in the ventilated patient]. / Traqueotomía percutánea en el paciente ventilado.

The medical indications of tracheostomy comprise the alleviation of upper airway obstruction; the prevention of laryngeal and upper airway damage due to prolonged translaryngeal intubation in patients subjected to prolonged mechanical ventilation; and the facilitation of airway access for the removal of secretions. Since 1985, percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) has gained widespread acceptance as a method for creating a surgical airway in patients requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. Since then, several comparative trials of PT and surgical tracheostomy have been conducted, and new techniques for PT have been developed. The use of percutaneous dilatation techniques under bronchoscopic control are now increasingly popular throughout the world. Tracheostomy should be performed as soon as the need for prolonged intubation is identified. However a validated model for the prediction of prolonged mechanical ventilation is not available, and the timing of tracheostomy should be individualized. The present review analyzes the state of the art of PT in mechanically ventilated patients--this being regarded by many as the technique of choice in performing tracheostomy in critically ill patients.

Percutaneous tracheostomy: Ciaglia Blue Rhino versus Griggs' Guide Wire Dilating Forceps. A prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) has gained widespread acceptance to control the airway in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Since 1985, new techniques for PT have been described. It was the aim of this investigation to compare two different PT techniques: the Ciaglia Blue Rhino (CBR) and the Guide Wire Dilating Forceps (GWDF). METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed in four intensive care units. After informed consent, 53 consecutive patients were randomized to undergo CBR or GWDF. Procedural complications were evaluated and specific symptoms of the upper airway tract in survivors were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were randomly assigned to CBR and 26 to GWDF. Patients mean ages were 62.7 +/- 15.8 years and 62.2 +/- 18.3, respectively. Mean APACHE II scores were 20.6 +/- 6.8 and 21.2 +/- 7.2, respectively. Median duration of the procedure was 7 min (range: 4-17 min) with GWDF and 9 min (range: 5-32 min) with CBR (P = 0.16). Seven patients in the group undergoing GWDF had complications (desaturation: two; mild bleeding: one; infected stoma: one; inability to complete the procedure: three). Two patients had complications in the group undergoing CBR (mild bleeding) (P = 0.07). Survivors were followed up after discharge. Three patients (all of them having undergone GWDF) were symptomatic (two with mild hoarseness and one with a persistent foreign body sensation), but laryngotracheoscopy was negative. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show no differences between both techniques regarding surgical duration or procedural complications. Late symptoms were encountered in three patients undergoing GWDF, however, laryngotracheoscopy failed to document anatomical or functional abnormalities.

Percutaneous tracheostomy: comparison of Ciaglia and Griggs techniques.

BACKGROUND: Although the standard tracheostomy described in 1909 by Jackson has been extensively used in critical patients, a more simple procedure that can be performed at the bedside is needed. Since 1957 several different types of percutaneous tracheostomy technique have been described. The purpose of the present study was to compare two bedside percutaneous tracheostomy techniques: percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and the guidewire dilating forceps (GWDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study in two medical/surgical intensive care units (ICUs) was carried out. Sixty-three critically ill patients who required endotracheal intubation for longer than 15 days were consecutively selected to undergo PDT (25 patients) or GWDF (38 patients) technique. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: Age (mean +/- standard error) was 63 +/- 1.1 years. The patients had been mechanically ventilated for an average of 19.8 +/- 1.2 days. The GWDF technique was significantly faster than PDT technique (P = 0.02). Fifteen complications occurred in 10 out of 63 (15%) patients. They were as follows: tracheal tear (one patient in each group; in one case this was due to false passage); transient hypotension (one patient in the PDT group and two patients in the GWDF group); atelectasis (one patient in the PDT group); and haemorrhage (one patient in the PDT group and three patients in the GWDF group). In both patients with tracheal tear, reduced arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) with concomitant subcutaneous emphysema ensued. CONCLUSION: We found no statistical differences between complications with both techniques. The surgical time required for the GWDF technique was less than that for PDT.