Ryan C. Higgins, Kaeli Samson, Duncan Works, Jayme R. Dowdall
{"title":"气管切开术指征对患者预后和住院过程的影响","authors":"Ryan C. Higgins, Kaeli Samson, Duncan Works, Jayme R. Dowdall","doi":"10.1002/lio2.70210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study is to better understand the prognostic implications for a patient's hospital course, chances for ventilator liberation and decannulation, functional status, and mortality based on the indication for tracheostomy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis was performed at a single tertiary-care institution for 106 adult patients who underwent a tracheostomy from January 2022 to March 2023 and were followed for 6 months post-tracheostomy placement. Demographics, clinical intervals, and clinical outcomes were compared based on the indication for tracheostomy: Airway Obstruction or Ventilator-Dependent Respiratory Failure (VDRF).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In the study group, 29 patients received a tracheostomy for airway obstruction, and 77 patients received a tracheostomy for VDRF. The VDRF group had more than three times longer hospital stays, more than three times the duration from first intubation to tracheostomy placement, six times the duration of mechanical ventilation post-tracheostomy, and increased rates of hospital mortality (23.4% vs. 3.4%) and mortality at 6 months post-tracheostomy placement (42.4% vs. 10.5%) compared to the Airway Obstruction group (<i>p</i>'s < 0.05). The VDRF group was less likely to be discharged home (6.5% vs. 44.8%). At discharge, the majority of patients were liberated from mechanical ventilation (82.8%) and speaking (77.0%). Most surviving patients were not decannulated during their admission (65.5%). There were no significant differences in diet or time interval to decannulation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our analysis suggests that consideration of clinical indicators pertaining to tracheostomy placement may facilitate improved conversations with patients, families, and healthcare teams regarding the nuances of the functional and logistical course after receiving a tracheostomy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>3.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48529,"journal":{"name":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lio2.70210","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Tracheostomy Indication on Patient Outcomes and Hospital Course\",\"authors\":\"Ryan C. Higgins, Kaeli Samson, Duncan Works, Jayme R. Dowdall\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/lio2.70210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study is to better understand the prognostic implications for a patient's hospital course, chances for ventilator liberation and decannulation, functional status, and mortality based on the indication for tracheostomy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective analysis was performed at a single tertiary-care institution for 106 adult patients who underwent a tracheostomy from January 2022 to March 2023 and were followed for 6 months post-tracheostomy placement. Demographics, clinical intervals, and clinical outcomes were compared based on the indication for tracheostomy: Airway Obstruction or Ventilator-Dependent Respiratory Failure (VDRF).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In the study group, 29 patients received a tracheostomy for airway obstruction, and 77 patients received a tracheostomy for VDRF. The VDRF group had more than three times longer hospital stays, more than three times the duration from first intubation to tracheostomy placement, six times the duration of mechanical ventilation post-tracheostomy, and increased rates of hospital mortality (23.4% vs. 3.4%) and mortality at 6 months post-tracheostomy placement (42.4% vs. 10.5%) compared to the Airway Obstruction group (<i>p</i>'s < 0.05). The VDRF group was less likely to be discharged home (6.5% vs. 44.8%). At discharge, the majority of patients were liberated from mechanical ventilation (82.8%) and speaking (77.0%). Most surviving patients were not decannulated during their admission (65.5%). There were no significant differences in diet or time interval to decannulation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our analysis suggests that consideration of clinical indicators pertaining to tracheostomy placement may facilitate improved conversations with patients, families, and healthcare teams regarding the nuances of the functional and logistical course after receiving a tracheostomy.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\\n \\n <p>3.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lio2.70210\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.70210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.70210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究的目的是更好地了解气管切开术指征对患者住院过程、呼吸机解放和脱管机会、功能状态和死亡率的预后影响。方法对2022年1月至2023年3月在某三级医疗机构行气管切开术的106例成人患者进行回顾性分析,并在气管切开术后随访6个月。根据气管切开术的指征:气道阻塞或呼吸机依赖性呼吸衰竭(VDRF),比较人口统计学、临床间隔和临床结果。结果研究组因气道梗阻行气管切开术29例,因VDRF行气管切开术77例。与气道阻塞组相比,VDRF组住院时间延长3倍以上,从首次插管到气管造口放置时间延长3倍以上,气管造口后机械通气时间延长6倍,住院死亡率(23.4%比3.4%)和气管造口放置后6个月死亡率(42.4%比10.5%)增加(p's < 0.05)。VDRF组出院回家的可能性较小(6.5% vs. 44.8%)。出院时,绝大多数患者脱离机械通气(82.8%)和说话(77.0%)。大多数存活患者在入院时未进行脱管(65.5%)。饮食和脱管时间间隔无显著差异。结论:我们的分析表明,考虑与气管切开术位置有关的临床指标,可以促进与患者、家属和医疗团队就气管切开术后功能和后勤过程的细微差别进行更好的对话。证据水平
The Impact of Tracheostomy Indication on Patient Outcomes and Hospital Course
Objective
The purpose of this study is to better understand the prognostic implications for a patient's hospital course, chances for ventilator liberation and decannulation, functional status, and mortality based on the indication for tracheostomy.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed at a single tertiary-care institution for 106 adult patients who underwent a tracheostomy from January 2022 to March 2023 and were followed for 6 months post-tracheostomy placement. Demographics, clinical intervals, and clinical outcomes were compared based on the indication for tracheostomy: Airway Obstruction or Ventilator-Dependent Respiratory Failure (VDRF).
Results
In the study group, 29 patients received a tracheostomy for airway obstruction, and 77 patients received a tracheostomy for VDRF. The VDRF group had more than three times longer hospital stays, more than three times the duration from first intubation to tracheostomy placement, six times the duration of mechanical ventilation post-tracheostomy, and increased rates of hospital mortality (23.4% vs. 3.4%) and mortality at 6 months post-tracheostomy placement (42.4% vs. 10.5%) compared to the Airway Obstruction group (p's < 0.05). The VDRF group was less likely to be discharged home (6.5% vs. 44.8%). At discharge, the majority of patients were liberated from mechanical ventilation (82.8%) and speaking (77.0%). Most surviving patients were not decannulated during their admission (65.5%). There were no significant differences in diet or time interval to decannulation.
Conclusion
Our analysis suggests that consideration of clinical indicators pertaining to tracheostomy placement may facilitate improved conversations with patients, families, and healthcare teams regarding the nuances of the functional and logistical course after receiving a tracheostomy.