Laryngotracheal Stenosis in Early vs Late Tracheostomy: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 162 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D. Curry ◽  
Paul J. Rowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Laryngotracheal Stenosis ◽  
Early Tracheostomy

Objective For critically ill patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation, to determine whether early conversion from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy reduces the incidence of laryngotracheal stenosis. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Review Methods A systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and an assessment of bias were performed. Included studies reported outcomes of patients who were converted from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, compared early vs late tracheostomy, and reported the incidence of laryngotracheal stenosis and details of postoperative surveillance. Data were also collected for intensive care setting, method of tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy. Results Seven articles met inclusion criteria: 2 randomized trials, 2 quasi-randomized trials, 1 prospective cohort, and 2 retrospective cohorts. A total of 966 patients were included in this analysis (496 in the early tracheostomy group and 470 in the late tracheostomy group). The mean incidence of laryngotracheal stenosis was 8.9% (range, 0%-20.8%), with a mean incidence of 8.1% in early tracheostomy groups and 10.9% in late tracheostomy groups. In studies with the least risk of bias, there were no differences in the incidence of laryngotracheal stenosis in patients who underwent early vs late tracheostomy. Conclusion In critically ill patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation, early conversion to tracheostomy within 7 days of intubation does not significantly decrease the risk of laryngotracheal stenosis compared to later conversion as defined by the included studies.

scholarly journals Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

scholarly journals Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l6722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhikang Ye ◽  
Annika Reintam Blaser ◽  
Lyubov Lytvyn ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Gordon H Guyatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Guideline Panel ◽  
Bleeding Prophylaxis

AbstractClinical questionWhat is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial.Current practiceGastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use.RecommendationsThis guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation).How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable.The evidenceThe linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty).Understanding the recommendationIn most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Respiratory support techniques to avoid desaturation in critically ill patients requiring endotracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 98-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Russotto ◽  
Andrea Cortegiani ◽  
Santi Maurizio Raineri ◽  
Cesare Gregoretti ◽  
Antonino Giarratano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Respiratory Support

scholarly journals Association Between Cytomegalovirus Reactivation and Clinical Outcomes in Immunocompetent Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Lachance ◽  
Justin Chen ◽  
Robin Featherstone ◽  
Wendy I Sligl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Resource ◽  
Health Resource Utilization ◽  
Cytomegalovirus Reactivation ◽  
Cmv Reactivation

Abstract Background The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and outcomes in immunocompetent critically ill patients. Methods We searched electronic databases and gray literature for original studies and abstracts published between 1990 and October 2016. The review was limited to studies including critically ill immunocompetent patients. Cytomegalovirus reactivation was defined as positive polymerase chain reaction, pp65 antigenemia, or viral culture from blood or bronchoalveolar lavage. Selected patient-centered outcomes included mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and nosocomial infections. Health resource utilization outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Results Twenty-two studies were included. In our primary analysis, CMV reactivation was associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.87–3.47), overall mortality (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.60–2.56), duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference 6.60 days; 95% CI, 3.09–10.12), nosocomial infections (OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.05–4.98), need for RRT (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.31–4.31), and ICU length of stay (mean difference 8.18 days; 95% CI, 6.14–10.22). In addition, numerous sensitivity analyses were performed. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, CMV reactivation was associated with worse clinical outcomes and greater health resource utilization in critically ill patients. However, it remains unclear whether CMV reactivation plays a causal role or if it is a surrogate for more severe illness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document