Prospective observational study of postoperative complications after percutaneous dilatational or surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and describe postoperative complications of single dilator percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in a large series of critically ill patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 1163 critically ill patients in a university affiliated tertiary referral hospital between 2002 and 2007. PDT was the procedure of choice for all critically ill patients requiring tracheostomy except for those with an anatomic abnormality or refractory coagulopathy, who underwent ST. Demographic and postoperative complication data were collected in a web-based database. RESULTS: 913 patients (79%) underwent PDT at the bedside in the ICU, and 250 (21%) underwent ST in the operating theatre. The tracheostomy tube was larger, and the duration of tracheostomy cannulation was shorter after PDT than after ST. The postoperative complication rate for PDT was 9.6% compared with 19.6% for ST (P<0.001). Tracheal tube obstruction and displacement were significantly less frequent after PDT (obstruction 1.0% for PDT v 3.6% for ST, P = 0.007; displacement, 1.3% for PDT v 4.8% for ST, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In a large heterogeneous group of critically ill patients, single dilator PDT was safe and had few postoperative complications. Although ST was used in higher-risk patients, those who underwent PDT were more likely to receive a larger-sized tracheostomy tube; they were also less likely to experience obstruction or displacement of the postoperative tracheostomy tube. These differences are probably related to a combination of patient selection, smaller, shorter tracheostomy tubes, and larger tissue incision size with ST.

Tracheostomy decannulation failure rate following critical illness: a prospective descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a well established and practical approach to airway management for patients requiring extended periods of mechanical ventilation or airway protection. Little evidence is available to guide the process of weaning and optimal timing of tracheostomy tube removal. Thus, decannulation decisions are based on clinical judgement. The aim of this study was to describe decannulation practice and failure rates in patients with tracheostomy following critical illness. METHODS: A prospective descriptive study was conducted of consecutive patients who received a tracheostomy at a tertiary metropolitan public hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between March 2002 and December 2006. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential tests. RESULTS: Of the 823 decannulation decisions, there were 40 episodes of failed decannulation, a failure rate of 4.8%. These 40 episodes occurred in 35 patients: 31 patients failed once, 3 patients failed twice and 1 patient failed three times. There was no associated mortality. Simple stoma recannulation was required in 25 episodes, with none of these patients readmitted to ICU. Translaryngeal intubation and readmission to ICU took place for the remaining 15 episodes. The primary reason for decannulation failure was sputum retention. Twenty-four patients (60%) failed decannulation within 24h, with 14 of these occurring within 4h. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessments coupled with professional judgement to decide the optimal time to remove tracheostomy tubes in patients following critical illness resulted in a failure rate comparable with published data. Although reintubation and readmission to ICU was required in just over one third of failed decannulation episodes, there was no associated mortality or other significant adverse events. Our data suggest nurses need to exercise high levels of clinical vigilance during the first 24h following decannulation, particularly the first 4h to detect early signs of respiratory compromise to avoid adverse outcomes.