Tracheostomy - A Comparative Study of Decannulation with Gradual Blocking of the Tube vs. Reduction of the Size of Tube - A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND

Tracheostomy is one of the most common procedures done in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Decannulation is the weaning off from tracheostomy to maintain spontaneous respiration and/or airway protection. However, this step needs a near perfect coordination of brain, swallowing, coughing, phonation, and respiratory muscles. However, despite its perceived importance, there is no universally accepted protocol for this vital transition. In this systematic review of decannulation we focus attention to this important aspect of tracheostomy care.

AIM

To compare the two methods of decannulation, with gradual blocking of the tube and reducing the size of the tube and also study and compare the incidental complications associated with both methods.

METHODOLOGY

This longitudinal, open label, randomized, observational study of 50 patients who were tracheostomized for more than 7 days was carried out in a tertiary health care Centre in central India. Over the course of 2 years demographic data, clinical information was collected and patients divided into 2 groups according to the method of decannulation done by a simple randomization method. The outcomes and the complications associated with the two techniques in the study groups were also be noted down and then compared.

RESULTS

Maximum number of patients in both the study groups were males (56% in group with tube blocking, and 52% in group with tube size reduction). 48% cases in group with tube blocking, and 60% in group with tube size reduction were noted to be between 51 and 70 years' age group. The mean duration between tracheostomy and decannulation in group with tube blocking was 16.63 + 8.44 days, and while it was 16.71 + 8.79 days in group with tube size reduction. 36% patients in group with tube blocking had tracheostomy tube number 7.5, while 32% had tube number 8. 36% in group with tube size reduction had tube number 7.5 while 32% had tube size 7. 4 patients in group with tube blocking, and 3 patients in group with tube size reduction required reinsertion of tube. 40% patients in group with tube blocking, and 44% in group with tube size reduction underwent tracheostomy following prolonged intubation. 4 patients in group with tube blocking, and 3 patients in group with tube size reduction required reinsertion of tube. 1 patient in group with tube blocking had trachea-esophageal fistula as post decannulation complication. 1 patient each in group with tube size reduction had granule formation over stoma and tracheal stenosis as complications.

CONCLUSION

The two decannulation methods, viz., gradual blocking of tube and reduction of tube size, showed comparable outcomes in terms of tube reinsertion rate, mechanical ventilation rate after decannulation, successful decannulation, and complications.