RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The usefulness of tracheostomy has been questioned in patients with COVID-19 and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). AIM: To compare the 90-day mortality rate of patients who underwent a tracheostomy due prolonged IMV with those that did not receive this procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied a historical cohort of 92 patients with COVID-19 and prolonged IMV (> 10 days). The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included days on IMV, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, frequency of nosocomial infections, and thrombotic complications demonstrated by images. A logistic regression was performed to adjust the effect of tracheostomy by SOFA score and days on IMV. RESULTS: Forty six patients aged 54 to 66 years (72% males) underwent tracheostomy. They had a median of two comorbidities, and received the procedure after a median of 20.5 days on IMV (interquartile range: 17-26). 90-day mortality was lower in patients who were tracheostomized than in the control group (6.5% vs. 32.6%, p-value < 0.01). However, after controlling for confounding factors, no differences were found in mortality between both groups (relative risk = 0.303, p-value = 0.233). Healthcare-associated infections and hospital/ICU length of stay were higher in patients with tracheostomy than in controls. Thrombotic complications occurred in 42.4% of the patients, without differences between both groups. No cases of COVID-19 were registered in the healthcare personnel who performed tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 undergoing prolonged IMV, performing a tracheostomy is not associated with excess mortality, and it is a safe procedure for healthcare personnel.
ANTECEDENTES: La utilidad de la traqueostomía en pacientes COVID-19 sometidos a ventilación mecánica invasiva (VMI) prolongada ha sido cuestionada. OBJETIVO: Comparar la mortalidad a 90 días en estos pacientes, con y sin traqueostomía. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudiamos una cohorte histórica de 92 pacientes COVID-19 con VMI prolongada (>10 días). El desenlace prima-rio fue mortalidad a 90 días. Se consideraron desenlaces secundarios los días en VMI, estadía hospitalaria/UCI, frecuencia de infecciones nosocomiales, y eventos trombóticos. Mediante regresión logística se ajustó el efecto de la traqueostomía en la mortalidad, por SOFA y días de VMI. RESULTADOS: Cuarenta y seis pacientes de 54 a 66 años (72% hombres) fueron traqueostomizados. Ellos tenían una mediana de dos comorbilidades, y recibieron el procedimiento luego de una mediana de 20,5 días en VMI (rango intercuartílico: 17-26). En el análisis crudo, la mortalidad a 90 días fue menor en los pacientes con traqueostomía que en el grupo control (6,5% vs. 32,6%; p < 0,001). No obstante, luego de controlar por factores de confusión, no se encontraron diferencias en mortalidad (riesgo relativo 0,303; p = 0,233). Las infecciones asociadas a la atención de salud y la estadía en hospital/UCI fueron mayores en los pacientes traqueostomizados que en los controles. Los eventos trombóticos ocurrieron en el 42,4% de los pacientes, sin diferencias entre grupos. No hubo casos de COVID-19 en el personal de salud que realizó las traqueostomías. CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes con COVID-19 sometidos a VMI prolongada, la realización de una traqueostomía no se asocia a un exceso de mortalidad, y es un procedimiento seguro para el personal sanitario.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Respiración Artificial , COVID-19 , Traqueostomía/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Unidades de Cuidados IntensivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The usefulness of tracheostomy has been questioned in patients with COVID-19 and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). AIM: To compare the 90-day mortality rate of patients who underwent a tracheostomy due prolonged IMV with those that did not receive this procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied a historical cohort of 92 patients with COVID-19 and prolonged IMV (> 10 days). The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included days on IMV, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, frequency of nosocomial infections, and thrombotic complications demonstrated by images. A logistic regression was performed to adjust the effect of tracheostomy by SOFA score and days on IMV. RESULTS: Forty six patients aged 54 to 66 years (72% males) underwent tracheostomy. They had a median of two comorbidities, and received the procedure after a median of 20.5 days on IMV (interquartile range: 17-26). 90-day mortality was lower in patients who were tracheostomized than in the control group (6.5% vs. 32.6%, p-value < 0.01). However, after controlling for confounding factors, no differences were found in mortality between both groups (relative risk = 0.303, p-value = 0.233). Healthcare-associated infections and hospital/ICU length of stay were higher in patients with tracheostomy than in controls. Thrombotic complications occurred in 42.4% of the patients, without differences between both groups. No cases of COVID-19 were registered in the healthcare personnel who performed tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 undergoing prolonged IMV, performing a tracheostomy is not associated with excess mortality, and it is a safe procedure for healthcare personnel.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Respiración Artificial , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Traqueostomía/efectos adversos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
No disponible