4.7 Article

Outcomes After Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Patients

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 272, 期 3, 页码 E181-E186

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004166

关键词

aerosol-generating procedures; COVID-19; intubation; invasive mechanical ventilation; personal protective equipment; SARS-CoV-2; tracheostomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the outcomes of patients undergoing tracheostomy for COVID-19 and of healthcare workers performing these procedures. Background: Tracheostomy is often performed for prolonged endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients. However, in the context of COVID-19, tracheostomy placement pathways have been altered due to the poor prognosis of intubated patients and the risk of transmission to providers through this highly aerosolizing procedure. Methods: A prospective single-system multi-center observational cohort study was performed on patients who underwent tracheostomy after acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. Results: Of the 53 patients who underwent tracheostomy, the average time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy was 19.7 days +/- 6.9 days. The most common indication for tracheostomy was acute respiratory distress syndrome, followed by failure to wean ventilation and post-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation. Thirty patients (56.6%) were liberated from the ventilator, 16 (30.2%) have been discharged alive, 7 (13.2%) have been decannulated, and 6 (11.3%) died. The average time from tracheostomy to ventilator liberation was 11.8 days +/- 6.9 days (range 2-32 days). Both open surgical and percutaneous dilational tracheostomy techniques were performed utilizing methods to mitigate aerosols. No healthcare worker transmissions resulted from performing the procedure. Conclusions: Alterations to tracheostomy practices and processes were successfully instituted. Following these steps, tracheostomy in COVID-19 intubated patients seems safe for both patients and healthcare workers performing the procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据