Pozzi Marco, Galbiati Sara, Locatelli Federica, Clementi Emilio, Strazzer Sandra
Scientific Institute IRCCS Eugenio Medea, Bosisio Parini, Lecco, Italy.
Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, CNR Institute of Neuroscience, "Luigi Sacco" University Hospital, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017 Nov;52(11):1509-1517. doi: 10.1002/ppul.23832. Epub 2017 Sep 26.
We assessed the performance of a tracheostomy decannulation protocol privileging safety over quickness, in pediatric patients undergoing rehabilitation from severe acquired brain injury. We analyzed factors associated with decannulation timing and possibility and examined cases of failure.
A safe decannulation protocol should minimize failures.
Retrospective observational study.
Patients aged 0-17 admitted to rehabilitation with tracheostomy in the last 15 years (n = 123).
We collected data on clinical and respiratory conditions at admittance, during the first rehabilitation stay and following follow-up controls. We described the sample and tested associations of several factors with the possibility to decannulate patients during either the first stay or follow-up. We described failures, defined as the cases in which tracheostomy tube had to be placed back immediately or after less than 1 month from removal.
At admittance, 93.5% patients were dysphagic and 37.9% had respiratory complications (mainly accumulation of supraglottic secretions). At first discharge, dysphagia was reduced (62.1%) and respiratory complications increased (41.1%). Tracheostomy was removed during the first stay in 55.3% patients, during follow-up in 13%, without failures among the 80 patients who followed the protocol. Four decannulations performed against protocol recommendations resulted in three failures. Decannulation was mainly prevented by the persistence of respiratory complications and dysphagia that constituted a relevant risk of aspiration and suffocation; decannulation was mainly postponed because of respiratory complications and breath-holding spells in very young children.
By applying a decannulation protocol that privileges safety over quickness, we encountered no failure. Respiratory complications and dysphagia that lead to supraglottic stagnation, and breath-holding spells, are key elements to consider before performing decannulation in pediatric patients.
我们评估了一项在重度获得性脑损伤康复期儿科患者中优先考虑安全性而非快速拔管的气管切开拔管方案的效果。我们分析了与拔管时间及可能性相关的因素,并检查了失败病例。
安全的拔管方案应尽量减少失败情况。
回顾性观察研究。
过去15年中因气管切开术入住康复机构的0至17岁患者(n = 123)。
我们收集了入院时、首次康复住院期间及后续随访时的临床和呼吸状况数据。我们描述了样本,并测试了多个因素与患者在首次住院或随访期间拔管可能性之间的关联。我们描述了失败情况,定义为气管切开管必须在拔除后立即或在拔除后不到1个月内重新置入的病例。
入院时,93.5%的患者存在吞咽困难,37.9%有呼吸并发症(主要是声门上分泌物积聚)。首次出院时,吞咽困难有所减轻(62.1%),呼吸并发症有所增加(41.1%)。55.3%的患者在首次住院期间拔除了气管切开管,13%在随访期间拔除,遵循该方案的80例患者中无失败病例。4例违反方案建议进行的拔管导致3例失败。呼吸并发症和吞咽困难的持续存在主要阻碍了拔管,这构成了误吸和窒息的相关风险;由于呼吸并发症和幼儿屏气发作,拔管主要被推迟。
通过应用优先考虑安全性而非快速性的拔管方案,我们未遇到失败情况。导致声门上停滞的呼吸并发症和吞咽困难以及屏气发作,是儿科患者进行拔管前需要考虑的关键因素。