Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 6/2021

01-06-2021 | COVID-19 | Miscellaneous

Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation

Authors: Aleix Rovira, Stephen Tricklebank, Pavol Surda, Stephen Whebell, Joe Zhang, Arun Takhar, Elizabeth Yeung, Kathleen Fan, Imran Ahmed, Phillip Hopkins, Deborah Dawson, Jonathan Ball, Ram Kumar, Waqas Khaliq, Ricard Simo, Asit Arora

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 6/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Griffiths J, Barber VS, Morgan L, Young JD (2005) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the timing of tracheostomy in adult patients undergoing artificial ventilation. BMJ 330:1243–1246CrossRef Griffiths J, Barber VS, Morgan L, Young JD (2005) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the timing of tracheostomy in adult patients undergoing artificial ventilation. BMJ 330:1243–1246CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Young D, Harrison DA, Cuthbertson BH, Rowan K (2013) Effect of early vs late tracheostomy placement on survival in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: the TracMan randomized trial. JAMA 309:2121–2129CrossRef Young D, Harrison DA, Cuthbertson BH, Rowan K (2013) Effect of early vs late tracheostomy placement on survival in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: the TracMan randomized trial. JAMA 309:2121–2129CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Filippidis FT, Choi AMK (2015) Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality and pneumonia of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 3:150–158CrossRef Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Filippidis FT, Choi AMK (2015) Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality and pneumonia of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 3:150–158CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Nieszkowska A, Combes A, Luyt C-E et al (2005) Impact of tracheotomy on sedative administration, sedation level, and comfort of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 33:2527–2533CrossRef Nieszkowska A, Combes A, Luyt C-E et al (2005) Impact of tracheotomy on sedative administration, sedation level, and comfort of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 33:2527–2533CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dulguerov P, Gysin C, Perneger TV, Chevrolet JC (1999) Percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 27:1617–1625CrossRef Dulguerov P, Gysin C, Perneger TV, Chevrolet JC (1999) Percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 27:1617–1625CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Nalos M (2006) Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 10:R55CrossRef Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Nalos M (2006) Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 10:R55CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Pappas S, Maragoudakis P, Vlastarakos P et al (2011) Surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy: an evidence-based approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268:323–330CrossRef Pappas S, Maragoudakis P, Vlastarakos P et al (2011) Surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy: an evidence-based approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268:323–330CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Silvester W, Goldsmith D, Uchino S et al (2006) Percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy: a randomized controlled study with long-term follow-up. Crit Care Med 34:2145–2152CrossRef Silvester W, Goldsmith D, Uchino S et al (2006) Percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy: a randomized controlled study with long-term follow-up. Crit Care Med 34:2145–2152CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Oliver ER, Gist A, Gillespie MB (2007) Percutaneous versus surgical tracheotomy: an updated meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 117:1570–1575CrossRef Oliver ER, Gist A, Gillespie MB (2007) Percutaneous versus surgical tracheotomy: an updated meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 117:1570–1575CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Brass P, Hellmich M, Ladra A, Ladra J, Wrzosek A (2016) Percutaneous techniques versus surgical techniques for tracheostomy (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD008045PubMed Brass P, Hellmich M, Ladra A, Ladra J, Wrzosek A (2016) Percutaneous techniques versus surgical techniques for tracheostomy (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD008045PubMed
12.
go back to reference Freeman BD, Isabella K, Lin N, Buchman TG (2000) A meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients. Chest 118:1412–1418CrossRef Freeman BD, Isabella K, Lin N, Buchman TG (2000) A meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients. Chest 118:1412–1418CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Higgins KM, Punthakee X (2007) Meta-analysis comparison of open versus percutaneous tracheostomy. Laryngoscope 117:447–454CrossRef Higgins KM, Punthakee X (2007) Meta-analysis comparison of open versus percutaneous tracheostomy. Laryngoscope 117:447–454CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cheng E, Fee WE (2000) Dilatational versus standard tracheostomy: a meta-analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 109:803–807CrossRef Cheng E, Fee WE (2000) Dilatational versus standard tracheostomy: a meta-analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 109:803–807CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Putensen C, Theuerkauf N, Guenther U, Vargas M, Pelosi P (2014) Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 18:544CrossRef Putensen C, Theuerkauf N, Guenther U, Vargas M, Pelosi P (2014) Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 18:544CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Chiesa-Estomba CM, Lechien JR, Calvo-Henríquez C, et al. (2020) Systematic review of international guidelines for tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Oral Oncol 108:104844CrossRef Chiesa-Estomba CM, Lechien JR, Calvo-Henríquez C, et al. (2020) Systematic review of international guidelines for tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Oral Oncol 108:104844CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Takhar A, Walker A, Tricklebank S et al (2020) Recommendation of a practical guideline for safe tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277:2173–2184CrossRef Takhar A, Walker A, Tricklebank S et al (2020) Recommendation of a practical guideline for safe tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277:2173–2184CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lipton G, Stewart M, McDermid R et al (2020) Multispecialty tracheostomy experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 102:343–347CrossRef Lipton G, Stewart M, McDermid R et al (2020) Multispecialty tracheostomy experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 102:343–347CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Levi M, Thachil J, Iba T, Levy JH (2020) Coagulation abnormalities and thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Haematol 7:e438–e440CrossRef Levi M, Thachil J, Iba T, Levy JH (2020) Coagulation abnormalities and thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Haematol 7:e438–e440CrossRef
20.
go back to reference The ARDS definition task force (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307:2526–2533 The ARDS definition task force (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307:2526–2533
21.
go back to reference Marini JJ, Gattinoni L (2020) Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA 323:2329–2330CrossRef Marini JJ, Gattinoni L (2020) Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA 323:2329–2330CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation
Authors
Aleix Rovira
Stephen Tricklebank
Pavol Surda
Stephen Whebell
Joe Zhang
Arun Takhar
Elizabeth Yeung
Kathleen Fan
Imran Ahmed
Phillip Hopkins
Deborah Dawson
Jonathan Ball
Ram Kumar
Waqas Khaliq
Ricard Simo
Asit Arora
Publication date
01-06-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 6/2021 Go to the issue