By M Remacle, G Lawson, J Jamart, C Trussart, P Bulpa
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Apr 12
A prospective study was designed to compare two single-dilator percutaneous tracheotomy techniques, the Ciaglia BlueRhino and the Percutwist technique. One hundred and ninety adult patients were included, 166 with the BlueRhino, a conical shaped, flexible rubber dilator, and 24 with the Percutwist, a screw like dilating device. The procedure was performed under fiberscopy in the intensive care unit (ICU). Age, body mass index (BMI), indication for tracheotomy, surgical landmarks, duration of the procedure and surgical complications were recorded. Median age and indications were similar for the two groups. Dilation was successful in all patients. The mean time for surgery was shorter with the Ciaglia technique: 8 +/- 3 versus 12 +/- 5 min with the Percutwist technique (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference related to weight, BMI, duration of tracheotomy and complications between both groups. One posterior tracheal wall puncture was observed with the Ciaglia technique and four with the Percutwist technique. No serious complications were noted with either technique. The Percutwist technique represents an alternative to the more established Ciaglia BlueRhino technique. The Ciaglia technique is a safe and more rapid procedure for bedside tracheotomy.
PercuTwist is a new technique for percutaneous tracheostomy in that stoma dilation is achieved with a unique screwlike dilating device. We describe the technique itself and our first clinical experiences with PercuTwist.
This is the original movie made by Rusch. Approx. 14 minutes.
By C Clec’h, C Alberti, F Vincent, M Garrouste-Orgeas, A de Lassence, D Toledano et al on behalf of the OUTCOMEREA study group
Critical Care Medicine 2007;35:132-138
To examine the association between the performance of a tracheostomy and intensive care unit and postintensive care unit mortality, controlling for treatment selection bias and confounding variables.
Design
Prospective, observational, cohort study.
Setting
Twelve French medical or surgical intensive care units.
Patients
Unselected patients requiring mechanical ventilation for >=48 hrs enrolled between 1997 and 2004.
Measurements and Main Results
Two models of propensity scores for tracheostomy were built using multivariate logistic regression. After matching on these propensity scores, the association of tracheostomy with outcomes was assessed using multivariate conditional logistic regression. Results obtained with the two models were compared. Of the 2,186 patients included, 177 (8.1%) received a tracheostomy. Both models led to similar results. Tracheostomy did not improve intensive care unit survival (model 1: odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.39; p = .74; model 2: odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.67; p = .59). There was no difference whether tracheostomy was performed early (within 7 days of ventilation) or late (after 7 days of ventilation). In patients discharged free from mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy was associated with increased postintensive care unit mortality when the tracheostomy tube was left in place (model 1: odds ratio, 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-9.83; p = .008; model 2: odds ratio, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-12.72, p = .003).
Conclusions
Tracheostomy does not seem to reduce intensive care unit mortality when performed in unselected patients but may represent a burden after intensive care unit discharge.
Translaryngeal intubated and ventilated patients often need sedation to treat anxiety, agitation and/or pain. Current opinion is that tracheotomy reduces sedation requirements. We determined sedation needs before and after tracheotomy of intubated and mechanically ventilated patients.
Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of the use of morphine, midazolam and propofol in patients before and after tracheotomy.
Results
Of 1,788 patients admitted to our intensive care unit during the study period, 129 (7%) were tracheotomized. After the exclusion of patients who received a tracheotomy before or at the day of admittance, 117 patients were left for analysis. The daily dose (DD; the amount of sedatives for each day) divided by the mean daily dose (MDD; the mean amount of sedatives per day for the study period) in the week before and the week after tracheotomy was 1.07 ± 0.93 DD/MDD versus 0.30 ± 0.65 for morphine, 0.84 ± 1.03 versus 0.11 ± 0.46 for midazolam, and 0.62 ± 1.05 versus 0.15 ± 0.45 for propofol (p < 0.01). However, when we focused on a shorter time interval (two days before and after tracheotomy), there were no differences in prescribed doses of morphine and midazolam. Studying the course in DD/MDD from seven days before the placement of tracheotomy, we found a significant decline in dosage. From day -7 to day -1, morphine dosage (DD/MDD) declined by 3.34 (95% confidence interval -1.61 to -6.24), midazolam dosage by 2.95 (-1.49 to -5.29) and propofol dosage by 1.05 (-0.41 to -2.01). After tracheotomy, no further decrease in DD/MDD was observed and the dosage remained stable for all sedatives. Patients in the non-surgical and acute surgical groups received higher dosages of midazolam than patients in the elective surgical group. Time until tracheotomy did not influence sedation requirements. In addition, there was no significant difference in sedation between different patient groups.
Conclusion
In our intensive care unit, sedation requirements were not further reduced after tracheotomy. Sedation requirements were already sharply declining before tracheotomy was performed.