ABSTRACT
Tracheostomy decannulation leaves an iatrogenic passage in the upper airways. Inadequate sealing leads to pulmonary dysfunction and reduced voice quality. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and impact of intratracheal tracheostomy sealing on laryngeal airflow and voice quality immediately after decannulation (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06138093). Fifteen adult, tracheostomized, intensive care unit patients were included from our hospital. A temporary, silicone-based sealing disc was inserted in the tracheostomy wound immediately after decannulation. Spirometry with measurement of forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were performed as measures of airway flow. Voice recordings were assessed using an equal appearing interval scale from 1 to 5. Median FVC, FEV1, PEF, and voice quality score with interquartile range (IQR) was 883 (510-1910) vs. 1260 (1005-1723) mL (p < 0.001), 790 (465-1255) vs. 870 (617-1297) mL (p < 0.001), 103 (55-211) vs. 107 (62-173) mL (p = 0.720), and 2 (1-2.5) vs. 4 (3-5) points (p < 0.001), respectively, with open tracheostomy vs. after sealing the tracheostomy with the intratracheal sealing disc. This feasibility study showed that tracheostomy sealing with the intratracheal disc was safe and led to immediate improvements in FVC, FEV1, and voice quality.
ABSTRACT
Background: Prolonged healing of tracheostomy after decannulation has a negative impact on respiration, hygiene, cosmetics, and social life. Even so, evidence-based observations of tracheostoma healing time are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine tracheostomy wound healing time after decannulation. Methods: In this prospective observational cohort study, we included 30 subjects undergoing decannulation following prolonged mechanical ventilation via tracheostomy. Our primary endpoint was tracheostomy healing time defined as time from decannulation to airtight healing. To identify any factors related to healing time, we included information about patient demographics, comorbidities, tracheostomy method, tube size, and intubation time. All subjects were observed daily until their tracheostomy wound had healed. Results: The median tracheostomy healing time was 6.5 (1-22) days. The duration of tracheal cannulation was the only factor significantly correlated with prolonged healing (p=0.03). Four patients were subjected to recannulation shortly after decannulation due to hypercapnia, respiratory failure, secretion accumulation, or self-decannulation. All wounds achieved complete spontaneous airtight closure. Conclusions: Duration of spontaneous tracheostomy closure after decannulation was 1-22 days, and closure time correlated with duration of cannulation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pain and discomfort in relation to vascular closure are the predominant patient complaints after coronary angiography (CAG). No large-scale randomized studies have evaluated pain and discomfort after CAG with access site closure by manual compression versus a vascular closure device (VCD). AIM: To compare pain and discomfort after femoral artery closure by manual compression versus FemoSeal® VCD. METHODS: The study is a sub study to the CLOSE-UP study, a randomized, single centre comparison of FemoSeal(®) VCD versus manual compression after CAG. Pain and discomfort score was assessed immediately after the closure procedure, at time for mobilization, at discharge and after 14 days. RESULTS: 1014 patients were included and 1001 patients entered analysis. In-hospital follow-up was obtained for all patients and 14-day follow-up was completed for 96% of patients. The closure procedure lasted 1 (1-1) min in the FemoSeal(®)VCD group and 8 (6-10) min in the manual compression group. Pain and discomfort score at the procedure was significantly higher in the FemoSeal(®)VCD group. No differences in pain and discomfort were detected after leaving the catheterization laboratory. CONCLUSION: Closure of femoral access after CAG by the FemoSeal(®)VCD was associated with significantly more pain and discomfort compared with closure by manual compression. No difference in pain and discomfort was found at follow-up.
