Byung Hee Kang1, Jayun Cho1, John Cook-Jong Lee1, Kyoungwon Jung2. 1. Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 World Cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Korea. 2. Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, 164 World Cup-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, Korea. jake98@ajou.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there have been many studies dealing with tracheostomy timing in trauma patients, the optimal timing is still being debated. This study aimed to compare outcomes between early tracheostomy (ET) and late tracheostomy (LT) in trauma populations to estimate the optimal timing of tracheostomy after intubation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the 5 years' data of trauma patients who underwent tracheostomy during their acute intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The cases were divided into two groups: ET was defined as tracheostomy performed within 7 days after intubation, and LT, after the seventh day. Propensity score matching was utilized using a 1-to-1 matching technique, and outcomes between two groups were compared. RESULTS: Among 236 enrolled patients, 76 met the criteria for ET and 160 were included for LT. Using propensity matching, 70 patients who met the criteria for ET were matched to 70 patients in the LT. Based on the comparison of outcomes after matching, ET showed significantly shorter values than LT in overall ventilator duration, length of stay at the ICU, and post-tracheostomy ventilation duration. Furthermore, the incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower with ET than with LT, although the rate of postoperative complications showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that ET should be considered in trauma patients needing prolonged mechanical ventilation. Also, we recommend that surgeons perform tracheostomy as early as within 7 days after intubation to not only reduce the ventilation and ICU days but also prevent pneumonia without worrying about an increase in postoperative complications.
BACKGROUND: Although there have been many studies dealing with tracheostomy timing in traumapatients, the optimal timing is still being debated. This study aimed to compare outcomes between early tracheostomy (ET) and late tracheostomy (LT) in trauma populations to estimate the optimal timing of tracheostomy after intubation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the 5 years' data of traumapatients who underwent tracheostomy during their acute intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The cases were divided into two groups: ET was defined as tracheostomy performed within 7 days after intubation, and LT, after the seventh day. Propensity score matching was utilized using a 1-to-1 matching technique, and outcomes between two groups were compared. RESULTS: Among 236 enrolled patients, 76 met the criteria for ET and 160 were included for LT. Using propensity matching, 70 patients who met the criteria for ET were matched to 70 patients in the LT. Based on the comparison of outcomes after matching, ET showed significantly shorter values than LT in overall ventilator duration, length of stay at the ICU, and post-tracheostomy ventilation duration. Furthermore, the incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower with ET than with LT, although the rate of postoperative complications showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that ET should be considered in traumapatients needing prolonged mechanical ventilation. Also, we recommend that surgeons perform tracheostomy as early as within 7 days after intubation to not only reduce the ventilation and ICU days but also prevent pneumonia without worrying about an increase in postoperative complications.
Authors: Mecker G Möller; Jason D Slaikeu; Pablo Bonelli; Alan T Davis; James E Hoogeboom; Bruce W Bonnell Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Aziz S Alali; Damon C Scales; Robert A Fowler; Todd G Mainprize; Joel G Ray; Alexander Kiss; Charles de Mestral; Avery B Nathens Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Mark J Rumbak; Michael Newton; Thomas Truncale; Skai W Schwartz; James W Adams; Patrick B Hazard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 7.598