Salas De Armas Ismael A, Dinh Kha, Akkanti Bindu, Jani Pushan, Hussain Reshma, Janowiak Lisa, Kutilek Kayla, Patel Manish K, Akay Mehmet H, Hussain Rahat, Patel Jayeshkumar, Patel Chandni, Liang Yafen, Zaki John, Kar Biswajit, Gregoric Igor D
Department of Advanced Cardiopulmonary Therapies and Transplantation, Department of Critical Care, Pulmonary, and Sleep Medicine, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas; and Department of Anesthesia, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
J Extra Corpor Technol. 2020 Dec;52(4):266-271. doi: 10.1182/ject-2000027.
Although the ideal timing of tracheostomy for critically ill patients is controversial, transitioning from an endotracheal tube can be beneficial. Concerns arise for patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Studies have described percutaneous and open tracheostomy approaches for critically ill patients but, to our knowledge, have not compared the two specifically in ECMO patients. This study analyzed safety and aimed to identify if there was a difference in major bleeding or other tracheostomy-associated complications. A single-center retrospective cohort study of all patients who received tracheostomy while on ECMO from July 2013 to May 2019 was completed. The primary endpoint was a significant difference in the incidence of a major bleeding adverse event at 48 hours. Secondary endpoints included differences in the incidence of complications (e.g., procedure-related mortality, ECMO decannulation, tracheal/esophageal injury, and pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum) and survival to discharge. A secondary analysis separated the groups further by comparing those with bleeding events and those without. The study included 27 ECMO patients: 16 (59%) in the percutaneous arm and 11 in the open arm. The median number of ECMO days before tracheostomy was 10 vs. 13, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for major bleeding events (percutaneous 44% vs. open 27%, = .45), procedure-related mortality, or procedure-related complications. Both percutaneous and open tracheostomies in patients on ECMO require a multidisciplinary approach to minimize adverse effects. Major bleeding does occur, but there was no statistically significant correlation between bleeding events and the type of the tracheostomy approach. Thus, both open and percutaneous tracheostomy approaches have a favorable safety profile.
尽管危重症患者气管切开的理想时机存在争议,但从气管插管过渡到气管切开可能是有益的。接受体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)支持的患者对此存在担忧。已有研究描述了危重症患者的经皮和开放性气管切开方法,但据我们所知,尚未专门比较ECMO患者的这两种方法。本研究分析了安全性,并旨在确定大出血或其他与气管切开相关的并发症是否存在差异。完成了一项对2013年7月至2019年5月期间在ECMO支持下接受气管切开的所有患者的单中心回顾性队列研究。主要终点是48小时时大出血不良事件发生率的显著差异。次要终点包括并发症发生率(如手术相关死亡率、ECMO拔管、气管/食管损伤和气胸/纵隔气肿)的差异以及出院生存率。二次分析通过比较有出血事件和无出血事件的患者进一步将组分开。该研究纳入了27例ECMO患者:经皮组16例(59%),开放组11例。气管切开前ECMO的中位天数分别为10天和13天。两组在大出血事件(经皮组44% vs. 开放组27%,P = 0.45)、手术相关死亡率或手术相关并发症方面无统计学显著差异。ECMO患者的经皮和开放性气管切开均需要多学科方法以尽量减少不良反应。大出血确实会发生,但出血事件与气管切开方法类型之间无统计学显著相关性。因此,开放性和经皮气管切开方法均具有良好的安全性。