Evidence-based guidelines for the use of tracheostomy in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based guidelines for tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients and identify areas needing further research. METHODS: A taskforce composed of representatives of 10 member countries of the Pan-American and Iberic Federation of Societies of Critical and Intensive Therapy Medicine and of the Latin American Critical Care Trial Investigators Network developed recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: The group identified 23 relevant questions among 87 issues that were initially identified. In the initial search, 333 relevant publications were identified, of which 226 publications were chosen. The taskforce generated a total of 19 recommendations, 10 positive (1B, 3; 2C, 3; 2D, 4) and 9 negative (1B, 8; 2C, 1). A recommendation was not possible in 6 questions. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous techniques are associated with a lower risk of infections compared with surgical tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy only seems to reduce the duration of ventilator use but not the incidence of pneumonia, the length of stay, or the long-term mortality rate. The evidence does not support the use of routine bronchoscopy guidance or laryngeal masks during the procedure. Finally, proper prior training is as important or even a more significant factor in reducing complications than the technique used.

Intensive care unit discharge to the ward with a tracheostomy cannula as a risk factor for mortality: a prospective, multicenter propensity analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of decannulation before intensive care unit discharge on ward survival in nonexperimental conditions. DESIGN: Prospective, observational survey. SETTING: Thirty-one intensive care units throughout Spain. PATIENTS: All patients admitted from March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At intensive care unit discharge, we recorded demographic variables, severity score, and intensive care unit treatments, with special attention to tracheostomy. After intensive care unit discharge, we recorded intensive care unit readmission and hospital survival. STATISTICS: Multivariate analyses for ward mortality, with Cox proportional hazard ratio adjusted for propensity score for intensive care unit decannulation. We included 4,132 patients, 1,996 of whom needed mechanical ventilation. Of these, 260 (13%) were tracheostomized and 59 (23%) died in the intensive care unit. Of the 201 intensive care unit tracheostomized survivors, 60 were decannulated in the intensive care unit and 141 were discharged to the ward with cannulae in place. Variables associated with intensive care unit decannulation (non-neurologic disease [85% vs. 64%], vasoactive drugs [90% vs. 76%], parenteral nutrition [55% vs. 33%], acute renal failure [37% vs. 23%], and good prognosis at intensive care unit discharge [40% vs. 18%]) were included in a propensity score model for decannulation. Crude ward mortality was similar in decannulated and nondecannulated patients (22% vs. 23%); however, after adjustment for the propensity score and Sabadell Score, the presence of a tracheostomy cannula was not associated with any survival disadvantage with an odds ratio of 0.6 [0.3-1.2] (p=.1). CONCLUSION: In our multicenter setting, intensive care unit discharge before decannulation is not a risk factor.