在 COVID-19 大流行之前,一家重症监护室连续两年提供的气管造口术相关数据。

Maria Papaioannou, Evdoxia Vagiana, Serafeim-Chrysovalantis Kotoulas, Maria Sileli, Katerina Manika, Alexandros Tsantos, Nikolaos Kapravelos
{"title":"在 COVID-19 大流行之前,一家重症监护室连续两年提供的气管造口术相关数据。","authors":"Maria Papaioannou, Evdoxia Vagiana, Serafeim-Chrysovalantis Kotoulas, Maria Sileli, Katerina Manika, Alexandros Tsantos, Nikolaos Kapravelos","doi":"10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.91868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tracheostomy is commonly used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are expected to be on long-term mechanical ventilation or suffer from emergency upper airway obstruction. However, some studies have conflicting findings regarding the optimal technique and its timing and benefits.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide evidence of practice, characteristics, and outcome concerning tracheostomy in an ICU of a tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study including adult critical care patients in a single ICU for two consecutive years. Patients' demographic characteristics, severity of illness (APACHE II score), level of consciousness [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)], comorbidities, timing and type of tracheostomy procedure performed and outcome were recorded. We defined late as tracheostomy placement after 8 days or no tracheotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 660 patients were analyzed (median age of 60 years), median APACHE II score of 19 and median GCS score of 12 at admission. Tracheostomy was performed in 115 patients, of whom 63 had early and 52 late procedures. Early tracheostomy was mainly executed in case of altered level of consciousness and severe critical illness polyneuromyopathy, however there were no significant statistical results (47.6% <i>vs</i> 36.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.23) and (23.8% <i>vs</i> 19.2%, <i>P</i> = 0.55) respectively. Regarding the method selected, early surgical tracheostomy (ST) was conducted in patients with maxillofacial injuries (50.0% <i>vs</i> 0.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.033), whereas late surgical tracheostomy was selected for patients with goiter (44.4% <i>vs</i> 0.0% <i>P</i> = 0.033). Patients with early tracheostomy spent significantly fewer days on mechanical ventilation (15.3 ± 8.5 <i>vs</i> 22.8 ± 9.6, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and in ICU in general (18.8 ± 9.1 <i>vs</i> 25.4 ± 11.5, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy (PDT) <i>vs</i> ST was preferable in older critical care patients in the case of Central Nervous System underlying cause of admission (62.5% <i>vs</i> 26.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.004). ST was the method of choice in compromised airway (31.6%, <i>vs</i> 7.3% <i>P</i> = 0.008). A large proportion of patients (88/115) with tracheostomy managed to wean from mechanical ventilation and were transferred out of the ICU (100% <i>vs</i> 17.4%, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PDT was performed more frequently in our cohort. This technique did not affect mechanical ventilation days, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, or survival. No complications were observed in the percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy groups. Patients undergoing early tracheostomy benefited in terms of mechanical ventilation days and ICU length of stay but not of discharge status, presence of VAP, or survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":94271,"journal":{"name":"World journal of methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tracheostomy-related data from an intensive care unit for two consecutive years before the COVID-19 pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Papaioannou, Evdoxia Vagiana, Serafeim-Chrysovalantis Kotoulas, Maria Sileli, Katerina Manika, Alexandros Tsantos, Nikolaos Kapravelos\",\"doi\":\"10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.91868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tracheostomy is commonly used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are expected to be on long-term mechanical ventilation or suffer from emergency upper airway obstruction. However, some studies have conflicting findings regarding the optimal technique and its timing and benefits.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide evidence of practice, characteristics, and outcome concerning tracheostomy in an ICU of a tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study including adult critical care patients in a single ICU for two consecutive years. Patients' demographic characteristics, severity of illness (APACHE II score), level of consciousness [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)], comorbidities, timing and type of tracheostomy procedure performed and outcome were recorded. We defined late as tracheostomy placement after 8 days or no tracheotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data of 660 patients were analyzed (median age of 60 years), median APACHE II score of 19 and median GCS score of 12 at admission. Tracheostomy was performed in 115 patients, of whom 63 had early and 52 late procedures. Early tracheostomy was mainly executed in case of altered level of consciousness and severe critical illness polyneuromyopathy, however there were no significant statistical results (47.6% <i>vs</i> 36.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.23) and (23.8% <i>vs</i> 19.2%, <i>P</i> = 0.55) respectively. Regarding the method selected, early surgical tracheostomy (ST) was conducted in patients with maxillofacial injuries (50.0% <i>vs</i> 0.0%, <i>P</i> = 0.033), whereas late surgical tracheostomy was selected for patients with goiter (44.4% <i>vs</i> 0.0% <i>P</i> = 0.033). Patients with early tracheostomy spent significantly fewer days on mechanical ventilation (15.3 ± 8.5 <i>vs</i> 22.8 ± 9.6, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and in ICU in general (18.8 ± 9.1 <i>vs</i> 25.4 ± 11.5, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy (PDT) <i>vs</i> ST was preferable in older critical care patients in the case of Central Nervous System underlying cause of admission (62.5% <i>vs</i> 26.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.004). ST was the method of choice in compromised airway (31.6%, <i>vs</i> 7.3% <i>P</i> = 0.008). A large proportion of patients (88/115) with tracheostomy managed to wean from mechanical ventilation and were transferred out of the ICU (100% <i>vs</i> 17.4%, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PDT was performed more frequently in our cohort. This technique did not affect mechanical ventilation days, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, or survival. No complications were observed in the percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy groups. Patients undergoing early tracheostomy benefited in terms of mechanical ventilation days and ICU length of stay but not of discharge status, presence of VAP, or survival.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11229867/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.91868\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v14.i2.91868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:气管切开术通常用于重症监护病房(ICU)中需要长期机械通气或患有紧急上气道阻塞的患者。目的:提供有关一家三级医院重症监护病房气管切开术的实践、特点和结果的证据:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象包括一家重症监护室连续两年的成年重症患者。研究记录了患者的人口统计学特征、病情严重程度(APACHE II 评分)、意识水平[格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)]、合并症、实施气管切开术的时间和类型以及结果。我们将晚期气管切开术定义为 8 天后实施气管切开术或未实施气管切开术:分析了 660 名患者的数据(中位年龄为 60 岁),入院时 APACHE II 评分中位数为 19 分,GCS 评分中位数为 12 分。115名患者接受了气管切开术,其中63人接受了早期气管切开术,52人接受了晚期气管切开术。早期气管切开术主要用于意识改变和重症多发性神经肌病,但统计结果并不显著(47.6% vs 36.5%,P = 0.23)和(23.8% vs 19.2%,P = 0.55)。关于选择的方法,颌面部受伤的患者选择早期手术气管切开术(ST)(50.0% vs 0.0%,P = 0.033),而甲状腺肿大的患者选择晚期手术气管切开术(44.4% vs 0.0%,P = 0.033)。早期气管切开术患者使用机械通气的天数(15.3 ± 8.5 vs 22.8 ± 9.6,P < 0.001)和在重症监护室的天数(18.8 ± 9.1 vs 25.4 ± 11.5,P < 0.001)明显减少。对于入院时患有中枢神经系统疾病的老年重症监护患者,经皮扩张气管造口术(PDT)与气管切开术相比更具优势(62.5% vs 26.3%,P = 0.004)。在气道受损的情况下,ST 是首选方法(31.6% vs 7.3% P = 0.008)。大部分气管切开患者(88/115)成功脱离机械通气并转出重症监护室(100% vs 17.4%,P < 0.001):结论:在我们的队列中,气管切开术的使用频率更高。该技术不会影响机械通气天数、呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)、重症监护室住院时间或存活率。经皮或手术气管切开组均未观察到并发症。接受早期气管切开术的患者在机械通气天数和重症监护室住院时间方面获益匪浅,但在出院情况、是否出现 VAP 或存活率方面则没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tracheostomy-related data from an intensive care unit for two consecutive years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Tracheostomy is commonly used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are expected to be on long-term mechanical ventilation or suffer from emergency upper airway obstruction. However, some studies have conflicting findings regarding the optimal technique and its timing and benefits.

Aim: To provide evidence of practice, characteristics, and outcome concerning tracheostomy in an ICU of a tertiary care hospital.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including adult critical care patients in a single ICU for two consecutive years. Patients' demographic characteristics, severity of illness (APACHE II score), level of consciousness [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)], comorbidities, timing and type of tracheostomy procedure performed and outcome were recorded. We defined late as tracheostomy placement after 8 days or no tracheotomy.

Results: Data of 660 patients were analyzed (median age of 60 years), median APACHE II score of 19 and median GCS score of 12 at admission. Tracheostomy was performed in 115 patients, of whom 63 had early and 52 late procedures. Early tracheostomy was mainly executed in case of altered level of consciousness and severe critical illness polyneuromyopathy, however there were no significant statistical results (47.6% vs 36.5%, P = 0.23) and (23.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.55) respectively. Regarding the method selected, early surgical tracheostomy (ST) was conducted in patients with maxillofacial injuries (50.0% vs 0.0%, P = 0.033), whereas late surgical tracheostomy was selected for patients with goiter (44.4% vs 0.0% P = 0.033). Patients with early tracheostomy spent significantly fewer days on mechanical ventilation (15.3 ± 8.5 vs 22.8 ± 9.6, P < 0.001) and in ICU in general (18.8 ± 9.1 vs 25.4 ± 11.5, P < 0.001). Percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy (PDT) vs ST was preferable in older critical care patients in the case of Central Nervous System underlying cause of admission (62.5% vs 26.3%, P = 0.004). ST was the method of choice in compromised airway (31.6%, vs 7.3% P = 0.008). A large proportion of patients (88/115) with tracheostomy managed to wean from mechanical ventilation and were transferred out of the ICU (100% vs 17.4%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: PDT was performed more frequently in our cohort. This technique did not affect mechanical ventilation days, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, or survival. No complications were observed in the percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy groups. Patients undergoing early tracheostomy benefited in terms of mechanical ventilation days and ICU length of stay but not of discharge status, presence of VAP, or survival.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信