
Tracheostomy in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients and follow-up: A parisian bicentric retrospective cohort
Author(s) -
Diane Evrard,
Igor Jurcisin,
Maksud Assadi,
Juliette Patrier,
Victor Tafani,
Nicolas Ullmann,
JeanFrançois Timsit,
Philippe Montravers,
B. Barry,
Emmanuel Weiss,
Sacha Rozencwajg
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0261024
Subject(s) - retrospective cohort study , covid-19 , medicine , acute respiratory distress , respiratory distress , betacoronavirus , cohort , young adult , respiratory system , cohort study , pediatrics , emergency medicine , intensive care medicine , virology , surgery , lung , outbreak , disease , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Background Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27 th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18 th , 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications. Results Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients’ characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12–22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the “early” group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the “late” group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22–41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15–34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12–19] versus 35 [25–47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16–28] versus 54 [35–72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14–20] and 35 [27–43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34–81] versus 92 [61–118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11–38] versus 45 [22–71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent. Conclusions Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.