scholarly journals Response to comments to “Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendationfor future resource utilisation”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleix Rovira ◽  
Stephen Tricklebank ◽  
Pavol Surda ◽  
Stephen Whebell ◽  
Joe Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Tracheostomy ◽  
Resource Utilisation ◽  
Open Versus

Meta-Analysis Comparison of Open Versus Percutaneous Tracheostomy

2007 ◽  
Vol 117 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Higgins ◽  
Xerxes Punthakee
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Percutaneous Tracheostomy ◽  
Open Versus

scholarly journals Safety and outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
A Takhar ◽  
C Tornari ◽  
N Amin ◽  
D Wyncoll ◽  
S Tricklebank ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Percutaneous Tracheostomy ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Resource Utilisation ◽  
Healthcare Resource Utilisation

Abstract Objectives Tracheostomy for coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation remains a matter of debate. This study analysed the timing and outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy, and reports our experience of a dedicated ENT–anaesthetics department led tracheostomy team. Method A prospective single-centre observational study was conducted of patients undergoing tracheostomy, who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonitis, between 21st March and 20th May 2020. Results Eighty-one patients underwent tracheostomy after a median (interquartile range) of 16 (13–20) days of invasive mechanical ventilation. Median follow-up duration was 32 (23–40) days. Of patients, 86.7 per cent were successfully liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation in a median (interquartile range) of 12 (7–16) days. Moreover, 68.7 per cent were subsequently discharged from hospital. On univariate analysis, there was no difference in outcomes between early (before day 14) and late (day 14 or later) tracheostomy. The mortality rate was 8.6 per cent and no deaths were tracheostomy related. Conclusion Outcomes appear favourable when patients are carefully selected. Percutaneous tracheostomy performed via a multidisciplinary approach, with appropriate training, was safe and optimised healthcare resource utilisation.

Percutaneous Tracheostomy: A Multidisciplinary Approach

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinciya Pandian ◽  
Thai Tran Nguyen ◽  
Marek Mirski ◽  
Nasir Islam Bhatti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Percutaneous Tracheostomy ◽  
Johns Hopkins Hospital ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Comprehensive Service ◽  
Over Time

Abstract The techniques of performing a tracheostomy has transformed over time. Percutaneous tracheostomy is gaining popularity over open tracheostomy given its advantages and as a result the number of bedside tracheostomies has increased necessitating the need for a Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program. The Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program at the Johns Hopkins Hospital is a comprehensive service that provides care to patients before, during, and after a tracheostomy with a multidisciplinary approach aimed at decreasing complications. Education is provided to patients, families, and health-care professionals who are involved in the management of a tracheostomy. Ongoing prospective data collection serves as a tool for Quality Assurance.

Open Versus Endovascular AAA Repair in Patients Who Are Morphological Candidates for Endovascular Treatment

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley B. Hill ◽  
Yehuda G. Wolf ◽  
W. Anthony Lee ◽  
Frank R. Arko ◽  
Cornelius Olcott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Open Versus
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document