Search

Objectives: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers., Design: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis., Setting: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City., Patients: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation., Interventions: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation., Measurements and Main Results: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection., Conclusions: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Dr. Kon received funding from Abiomed/Breethe and Medtronic. Dr. Cerfolio received funding from Intuitive Surgical and Expert Testimony. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

When significant clinical end points are considered, PDT is a cost-effective and safe alternative to ST in critically ill patients in the ICU when performed by skilled and experienced practitioners [1, 40]. There are insufficient data to establish clear superiority of either technique. Important advantages of PDT may include eliminating the need for operating room facilities and personnel by the performance of the procedure at the bedside and significantly decreasing the time interval between the decision to perform tracheostomy and the actual procedure [1, 2, 20].

Objective: Previous tracheostomy has been considered a relative contraindication for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. The objective of this study was to assess the safety of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in critically ill patients with a history of previous tracheostomy., Design: Retrospective, single-center case series of all consecutive patients requiring repeat tracheostomy for continued mechanical ventilatory support., Setting: Intensive care unit of a tertiary-care referral center., Subjects: Fourteen patients (eight female, six male) with a median age of 70 yrs (range, 33-94). All patients had previously undergone tracheostomy., Intervention: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy., Measurement and Main Results: Subjects' previous tracheostomies dated back between 10 days and 8 yrs. Present intubation time before percutaneous dilational tracheostomy varied between 4 and 30 days. Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was performed successfully in all 14 patients by trained pulmonologists and surgeons. Eleven patients received an 8-mm and three received a 7-mm tracheostomy tube. There were no significant periprocedural complications, and no patient required surgical revision. The only postprocedural complication was accidental decannulation in one patient, which was managed with repeat percutaneous dilational tracheostomy., Conclusions: Trained physicians can safely perform bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy after previous tracheostomy. Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy offers an alternative to surgical tracheostomy in this particular patient population and should not be considered contraindicated.