Dataset Information

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial.

Research question

Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics?

Study design and methods

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation).

Results

Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy.

Interpretation

Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8361308 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Hernandez Gonzalo G Ramos Francisco Javier FJ Añon José Manuel JM Ortiz Ramón R Colinas Laura L Masclans Joan Ramón JR De Haro Candelaria C Ortega Alfonso A Peñuelas Oscar O Cruz-Delgado María Del Mar MDM Canabal Alfonso A Plans Oriol O Vaquero Concepción C Rialp Gemma G Gordo Federico F Lesmes Amanda A Martinez María M Figueira Juan Carlos JC Gomez-Carranza Alejandro A Corrales Rocio R Castellvi Andrea A Castiñeiras Beatriz B Frutos-Vivar Fernando F Prada Jorge J De Pablo Raul R Naharro Antonio A Montejo Juan Carlos JC Diaz Claudia C Santos-Peral Alfonso A Padilla Rebeca R Marin-Corral Judith J Rodriguez-Solis Carmen C Sanchez-Giralt Juan Antonio JA Jimenez Jorge J Cuena Rafael R Perez-Hoyos Santiago S Roca Oriol O

Chest 20210617 1

<h4>Background</h4>During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial.<h4>Research question</h4>Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics?<h4>Study design and methods</h4>This retrospective cohort study inc ...[more]

PMID: 34147502

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.SettingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).Results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.ConclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Early tracheostomy has been associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer complications in adult trauma patients. Guidelines for tracheostomy have not been established for children with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The purpose of this study was to (1) define nationwide trends in time to extubation and time to tracheostomy and (2) determine if early tracheostomy is associated with decreased length of stay and fewer complications in children with severe TBI. METHODS:Records of children (<15 years) with severe TBI (head Abbreviated Injury Severity [AIS] score ?3) who were mechanically ventilated (>48 hours) were obtained from the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2015). Outcomes after early (?14 days) and late (?15 days) tracheostomy placement were compared using 1:1 propensity score matching to control for potential confounding by indication. Propensity scores were calculated based on age, race, pulse, blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale motor score, injury mechanism, associated injury Abbreviated Injury Severity scores, TBI subtype, craniotomy, and intracranial pressure monitor placement. RESULTS:Among 6,101 children with severe TBI, 5,740 (94%) were extubated or died without tracheostomy, 95% of the time within 18 days. Tracheostomy was performed in 361 children (6%) at a median [interquartile range] of 15 [10, 22] days. Using propensity score matching, we compared 121 matched pairs with early or late tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy was associated with fewer ventilator days (14 [9, 19] vs. 25 [19, 35]), intensive care unit days (19 [14, 25] vs. 31 [24, 43]), and hospital days (26 [19, 41] vs. 39 [31, 54], all p < 0.05). Pneumonia (24% vs. 41%), venous thromboembolism (3% vs. 13%), and decubitus ulcer (4% vs. 13%) occurred less frequently with early tracheostomy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Early tracheostomy is associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer complications among children with severe TBI. Extubation without tracheostomy is rare beyond 18 days after injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and epidemiological, retrospective comparative study, level III.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Materials and methodsAll 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.ResultsA total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.ConclusionECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Project description:BackgroundRegional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) is the gold standard of anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy but is rarely used for intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in ICU. Few studies assessed the safety and efficacy of RCA during IHD in ICU; however, no data are available comparing RCA to heparin anticoagulation, which are commonly used for IHD. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of RCA compared to heparin anticoagulation during IHD.MethodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive ICU patients treated with either heparin anticoagulation (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) or RCA for IHD from July to September in 2015 and 2017. RCA was performed with citrate infusion according to blood flow and calcium infusion by diffusive influx from dialysate. Using a propensity score analysis, as the primary endpoint we assessed whether RCA improved efficacy, quantified with Kt/V from the ionic dialysance, compared to heparin anticoagulation. The secondary endpoint was safety. Exploratory analyses were performed on the changes in efficacy and safety between the implementation period (2015) and at long term (2017).ResultsIn total, 208 IHD sessions were performed in 56 patients and were compared (124 RCA and 84 heparin coagulation). There was no difference in Kt/V between RCA and heparin (0.95 ± 0.38 vs. 0.89 ± 0.32; p = 0.98). A higher number of circuit clotting (12.9% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.02) and premature interruption resulting from acute high transmembrane pressure (21% vs. 7%; p = 0.02) occurred in the RCA sessions compared to the heparin sessions. In the propensity score-matching analysis, RCA was associated with an increased risk of circuit clotting (absolute differences = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03-0.18]; p = 0.008). There was no difference in efficacy and safety between the two time periods (2015 and 2017).ConclusionRCA with calcium infusion by diffusive influx from dialysate for IHD was easy to implement with stable long-term efficacy and safety but did not improve efficacy and could be associated with an increased risk of circuit clotting compared to heparin anticoagulation in non-selected ICU patients. Randomized trials to determine the best anticoagulation for IHD in ICU patients should be conducted in a variety of settings.

Dataset Information

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background

Research question

Study design and methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets