Indication and Timing


Indications

 Need for prolonged mechanical ventilation

 Upper airway obstruction

Potential benefits

 Patient’s comfort and reduced need for sedation

 Improved clearance of airway secretions

 Faster weaning from mechanical ventilation

 Avoidance of (or recovery from) laryngeal injuries due to prolonged translaryngeal intubation and better long-term laryngeal function

 Improved oral hygiene

 Oral intake

 Easier communication

 Easier airway management in non-ICU settings

Possible reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia



Patients with both traumatic and non-traumatic neurological injury may benefit from tracheostomy since it provides airway protection and facilitates pulmonary clearance. In this group of patients, long-term ventilatory support may not be necessarily required [10].

Patients’ undergoing tracheostomy in an elective setting should have their clinical status optimised in order to reduce the risks associated with its surgical or percutaneous dilatational procedure (i.e. hemodynamic instability, risk of delivering a low ventilatory support, metabolic and haemostasis alterations) [1].



3.2 Benefits of Tracheostomy



3.2.1 Patient’s Comfort


It is a common belief that tracheostomy is associated with improved patients’ comfort and consequently less need for sedation [10]. In a retrospective study with the primary aim of assessing the effect of tracheostomy on sedation level requirements, tracheostomy was performed in 72 out of 312 patients requiring mechanical ventilation during the study period. The cumulative doses of fentanyl and midazolam decreased after tracheostomy. This observation was associated with a reduced time on sedation without any increase in agitation. Of note, during the 7 days following tracheostomy, almost half of patients started to have oral alimentation [11].

In a randomised study of early tracheostomy compared to prolonged translaryngeal intubation in unselected critically ill patients, participants were asked to answer a subjective questionnaire assessing the degree of comfort through a 10-point rating scale. For most investigated criteria (e.g. mouth discomfort, feeling of better mouth hygiene, patient’s perception of better well-being, overall feeling of comfort) resulted in favouring tracheostomy. Of note, all patients who received both translaryngeal intubation and early or late tracheostomy considered the latter the most comfortable technique. [10] The potential conclusion is that improved patient’s comfort may be enough to justify the indication for tracheostomy in patients with an anticipated prolonged intubation.


3.2.2 Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation


It is a common belief that tracheostomy may hasten the liberation from mechanical ventilation and facilitate transfer outside the ICU [12]. The reduced dead space of tracheostomy has been traditionally included among the advantages of the procedure contributing to a higher weaning success rate [13]. However, the contribution of a smaller dead space seems to have a negligible effect on ventilatory mechanics and gas exchange [14].

Tracheostomy may reduce resistances to airflow if compared to endotracheal tube. Indeed, airways resistance and associated work of breathing is increased in the presence of turbulent airflow, tube length and smaller tube diameter [15]. Therefore, a theoretical benefit in terms of resistance may be attributed to tracheostomy, given its shorter length, rigid design and a possible presence of an inner cannula, which allows an easier and effective clearance of secretions. Reduced airflow resistance and associated work of breathing was studied both in a mannequin model [15] and in several case series of patients undergoing tracheostomy. A significant reduction of baseline work of breathing in endotracheally intubated patients was reported after tracheostomy performance in most, but not all, studies [13, 1618]. However, in tracheostomised difficult to wean subjects, the decrease of the tracheotomy tube size was associated with an increased diaphragm effort and worse weanability indices (pressure-time product per minute, the ratio of breathing frequency to tidal volume, and tension-time index of the diaphragm) that were otherwise normal, using a higher diameter. An in vitro study showed that resistances increased similarly for tracheotomy tube and endotracheal tube, decreasing the diameter and increasing the flows [19]. The benefit of tracheostomy in terms of reduced duration of mechanical ventilation has been investigated as a secondary outcome of recently performed randomised studies designed with the primary aim of assessing the role of early tracheostomy for mortality or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) reduction if compared to a late tracheostomy approach [20, 21], showing a higher ventilator-free days and ICU-free days in one of them [20]. A major difficulty in assessing the direct effect of tracheostomy on weaning is the need to anticipate prolonged mechanical ventilation for patients’ inclusion in trials. For this reason, Sugerman et al. [22] highlighted the possibility of selection bias among the limitations of a multi-centre study investigating the use of early tracheostomy in trauma patients. In this study, attending surgeons or residents may have prevented patient’s entry into the study according to their strong clinical belief of performing an early extubation. Moreover different weaning protocols and even weaning success criteria have been adopted in different trials. It has also been emphasised that the clinician’s management of patients needing ventilatory support may be modified if patients are endotracheally intubated or tracheostomised [3]. Tracheostomy allows the maintenance of a patent airway and the ease of suctioning in a patient who may be ready for discontinuation from ventilatory support. These advantages may lead to an early liberation from the ventilatory support compared to a more cautious approach reserved to endotracheally intubated patients, who would be exposed to an increased risk of reintubation in case of failure [23]. In a cohort of reintubated patients, patients who received tracheostomy had an outcome similar to those without tracheostomy [24].

Finally, in many hospitals, patients with a tracheostomy can be discharged from the ICU to different facilities where, eventually, the ventilatory support may be continued by trained staff. The presence of a stable airway with ease of suctioning by non ICU staff is perceived as a safe policy by most clinicians [3]. This fact should be considered if length of ICU stay is a secondary outcome variable of a study investigating the benefits of tracheostomy in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation.


3.2.3 Incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia


No definitive evidence has been reported about the role of tracheostomy for prevention of VAP. Pathogenesis of VAP largely relies on the interplay between the endotracheal tube, risk factors, virulence of bacteria and patient’s immune status [25]. The endotracheal tube may play a major role because of the disruption of natural defence mechanisms (i.e. cough reflex, mucociliary clearance) and the risk of tracheal soiling due to micro-aspirations from the pooling of secretions above the ET. The theoretical advantage of tracheostomy comes from the preservation of glottic function and the avoidance of other potential pathogenic mechanisms associated with translaryngeal intubation. Nevertheless a high-quality, multi-centre study investigating the advantage of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy for the primary outcome of VAP showed no statistically significant difference in VAP incidence among the two groups [20].

Most of data about VAP incidence came from studies investigating tracheostomy timing [20, 26]. However, a potential bias could arise when comparing an early versus late approach since the incidence of VAP is clearly related to the length of intubation.


3.3 Timing of Tracheostomy


Timing of tracheostomy in critically ill patients refers to the time at which tracheostomy is performed during the clinical course. Even though indications and advantages of tracheostomy have been largely described in the critical care setting, timing remains controversial. More than 25 years ago, a consensus conference on artificial airways in patients receiving mechanical ventilation produced the following recommendation: “The appropriate duration of translaryngeal intubation cannot be defined at present. Clinical consideration or complications may dictate changing the artificial airway to another route. However, no data exist that give adequate direction as to when it is routinely advisable to change from a translaryngeal intubation to a tracheostomy” [4]. Nowadays, some uncertainty remains about this topic. A strong indication for tracheostomy arises when there is the need for prolonged endotracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation. The concept of “prolonged” intubation has changed over time, starting from an older approach with indication for tracheostomy given after several days of the course of the critical illness (usually after 15 days or more of endotracheal intubation) to more recent approaches considering tracheostomy earlier (e.g. after 3–10 days). Moreover, other aspects have influenced this trend. In 1960s, ETs were made of rigid and inflexible material with low-volume, high-pressure cuff. [27] Consequently, it was common to perform tracheostomy “early” during the clinical course to minimise injuries to upper airways, larynx and trachea resulting from translaryngeal intubation. During the following decades, progress in materials and equipment leads to less injuries and complications. In 1981 Stauffer et al. [28] reported data about risks associated with tracheostomy describing a significant increase in morbidity (stomal haemorrhage and infection rates >30 %, rate of tracheal stenosis >50 %) and a significant increase in mortality (4 %). Thus, the trend started to change leading to a progressive delay of the procedure. During the last 25 years, advances in techniques and equipment caused great improvement in the safety of the procedure that became easily performable at bedside [3, 29, 30]. Generally, the different approaches in timing have been defined as early and late. However, no consensus exists about what exactly constitutes early vs late tracheostomy. The question about tracheostomy timing is complex because several factors should be considered: (1) an estimate of the probability of prolonged mechanical ventilation, especially for certain categories of critically ill patients (e.g. neurological or trauma patients), and (2) the best time for tracheostomy during the course of the critical illness. In the case of patients considered at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation, early tracheostomy strategy would expose them to an unnecessary procedure if the prediction failed. On the other hand, patients considered to have unduly relatively short mechanical ventilation during their stay in the ICU may undergo an unnecessary prolonged exposure to translaryngeal endotracheal intubation. This fact may increase potential complications, without the advantages of tracheostomy in terms of weaning, and other aspects of care.

A recent analysis [31] of seven national surveys performed in France [32], Germany [33], Italy [9], the Netherlands [34], Spain [35], Switzerland [36] and the UK [37] demonstrated that the presence of a shared clinical practice across Europe about tracheostomy timing (from 7 to 15 days from ICU admission). A review of the Project IMPACT database (109 ICUs) reported that tracheostomy was performed at a median of 9 days after ICU admission with an interquartile range of 5–14 days [38]. From many years, evidence to guide the decision about tracheostomy timing came from observational, retrospective and relatively small and/or single-centre randomised trials [10, 22, 3942]. Several factors may have reduced the quality of evidence from studies: variable protocols quality, sub-optimal sample size, heterogeneity in populations enrolled and patients’ characteristics, lack of standardised protocol for co-interventions and inconsistency in outcomes selection across studies. Many of these studies supported the concept that early tracheostomy was beneficial, generating the hypothesis to be confirmed by larger studies. Recently, two large prospective multi-centre randomised trials enrolling general ICU population [20, 21] and two meta-analyses [43, 44] have investigated early versus late strategy for tracheostomy, adding robust data and new insight about this topic.

In 2010, Terragni et al. [20] reported data from a multi-centre randomised trial performed in 12 Italian ICUs from June 2004 to June 2008 enrolling 600 adult patients without pneumonia (clinical pulmonary infection score, CPIS -<6), ventilated for 24 h, who had a Simplified Organ Failure Assessment score between 35 and 65 and a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 5 or more. Patients were randomised after 72 h (48 h after the enrolment) if having PaO2 <60 mmHg (FiO2 = 0.5, PEEP = 8 cmH2O), SOFA score = >5 and no pneumonia. The two arms of the study were: (1) early tracheostomy (6–8 days of laryngeal intubation, 209 patients assigned) and (2) late tracheostomy (13–15 days of laryngeal intubation, 210 patients assigned). The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of VAP; secondary outcomes during the 28 days immediately following randomisation were number of ventilator-free days, number of ICU-free days and survival. VAP were diagnosed using the simplified CPIS (CPIS score >6) at study entry, at randomisation and every 72 h until day 28. The study included medical patients (40 % of the early group and 36 % of the late group), scheduled surgical patients (8 % vs 10 %), unscheduled surgical patients (41 % vs 45 %) and trauma patients (11 % vs 9 %) without significant difference between groups. Many randomised patients (31 % in the early group vs 43 % in the late group) did not undergo tracheostomy due to proximity to extubation or death. All tracheostomies were performed bedside with percutaneous techniques (Griggs technique in 72 % in early group and 73 % in late group, PercuTwist technique in 25 % in early group and 22 % in late group). Adverse events occurred in 39 % of both groups. The incidence of VAP was not significantly different between groups (14 % early vs 21 % late; P = 0.07). The number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days and the incidences of successful weaning and ICU discharge were significantly greater in patients randomised to the early tracheostomy group compared with patients randomised to the late tracheostomy group; there were no difference between the groups in survival at 28 days. The authors concluded that early tracheostomy did not result in a significant reduction in incidence of VAP compared to late tracheostomy. They also underlined that long-term outcomes did not differ and that more than one-third of patients experienced adverse events related to the tracheostomy. Basing on these findings, they suggest that tracheostomy should not be performed earlier than 13–15 days. One limitation of this study was the use of CPIS score for the diagnosis of VAP since its diagnostic performance in this setting was not high, especially in surgical and trauma patients [45]. Another limitation was related to some exclusion criteria (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, active pneumonia, anatomic deformity of the neck, lung cancer) partially limiting the clinical applicability of the results to general ICU population.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 4, 2017 | Posted by in CRITICAL CARE | Comments Off on Indication and Timing

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access