Tracheostomy outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Tracheostomy is a standard surgical procedure that is used in critically ill patients who require sustained mechanical ventilation. In this article, we review the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who underwent tracheostomy. We searched for relevant articles on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, up to April 20, 2021. This meta- analysis examines ventilation liberation, decannulation, and hospital mortality rates in COVID-19 patients who have undergone tracheostomy. Two investigators evaluated the articles, and the differences of opinion were settled by consensus with a third author. A total of 4366 patients were included in 47 related articles for this meta-analysis. After data pooling, the proportions of ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were found to be 48% (95% CI: 31–64), 42% (95% CI: 17–69) and 18% (95% CI: 9–28) respectively. The Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index values for ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality were 4.28, 1.32 and 0.69. No transmission of the disease attributable to participating in tracheostomy procedures was reported in most of the included articles.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019 [1]. Within a few months, this new virus disseminated globally and caused a worldwide pandemic. The disease severity is variable; however, many patients require ventilator support [2]. The weaning of COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation is very difficult. Accidental extubation may cause substantial injury or death as well as putting the health care personnel at risk [3]. Generally, tracheostomy is performed in mechanically ventilated, severely ill individuals requiring ventilator support for a longer period. It reduces the requirement for sedation, facilitates tracheal toilet, increases convenience, and decreases the duration of ventilation and hospitalization, which, in an overloaded healthcare system lacking ventilators and skilled medical staff, has a significant impact [4]. However, while tracheostomy allows for smoother weaning, it also entails risks associated with viral transmission [5]. Current descriptive studies regarding tracheostomy in patients suffering from COVID-19 show variable outcomes [6, 7]. The amount of scientific literature discussing tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients is constantly increasing. In this meta-analysis, we examine the outcomes such as ventilation liberation, decannulation and mortality in patients suffering from COVID-19 who underwent a tracheostomy.

Methods

This review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [8].

Eligibility criteria

In this review, we included all studies where patients with COVID-19 had undergone a tracheostomy. We excluded studies that used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 patients who had undergone a tracheostomy.

Information sources

The databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS were searched using keywords (“Tracheostomy” [Mesh] OR Tracheostomy) AND (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2”). All articles published in these data­bases up to April 20, 2021, were included.

Study selection

Rayyan QCRI, an online citation screening tool, was used for the management of selected studies [9]. Two authors (A.S. and A.D.G.) separately screened all the titles and abstracts to remove duplicates. In the second stage, two authors independently screened the remaining articles for their full text to consider potential inclusion in the review. Any discrepancies regarding the inclusion of an article were settled by agreement with the third author (P.B.). The process of selection of the articles is described in detail in Figure 1.

Data extraction

The extraction of data was carried out in a standardised format in Microsoft Excel for the following parameters: author, country, sample size, study settings, population characteristics such as age, gender, tracheostomy type, and various outcomes. Two authors (A.S. and A.D.G.) executed data extraction separately (Table 1). Any discrepancy was resolved by consensus with a third author (P.B.).

Quality assessment of studies

A critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool) was utilised to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies included [10]. It consists of 20 questions with the responses “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”. Two authors independently critically evaluated each article by applying this method. The discussion and consensus settled discrepancies that arose during the critical appraisal. A risk of bias diagram was prepared to represent the quality of the included studies.

Data synthesis and analyses

This meta-analysis focuses on pooling ventilation liberation, decannulation, and mortality rates in COVID-19 patients who have undergone a tracheo­stomy. The pooled estimates were evaluated using the inverse variance heterogeneity model [11]. The I squared (I2) statistic and Cochran’s Q test were used to test for heterogeneity. Both effect sizes and pooled estimates are expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Small study effects such as publication bias were discerned by visual assessment of DOI plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index [12]. Hete­rogeneity was further investigated using sensitivity analysis. MetaXL software was used for meta-analysis [13].

Results

The records were identified through database searching (PubMed, n = 379, Scopus, n = 453, and Google Scholar, n = 244) using the above-mentioned searched strategy. After removing duplicates, 689 records were analysed. Out of 689 articles screened, 426 articles were removed based on titles and abstracts. Subsequently, 263 full-text studies were evaluated for eligibility. Out of them, 86 were review articles, 62 were case reports, 35 were not about tracheostomy, 23 were on tracheostomy + ECMO, five were simulation studies, four were surveys, and one was not about COVID-19. These were not included. Finally, 47 studies including a total of 4,366 patients were incorporated into the qualitative and quantitative synthesis (Figure 1) [6, 7, 14–58]. Out of them, 12 studies were from the USA, 12 from the UK, seven from Italy, seven from Spain, two from China, two from Germany, and one each from Brazil, France, Belgium, Israel, and Korea. These studies included percutaneous tracheostomy (PCT), surgical tracheo­stomy (ST), and hybrid tracheostomy. The smallest case series among these included five patients and was reported by Tabaoda et al. [22], while the largest analysis, which included 1890 patients, was performed by Martin-Villares et al. [20]. All studies included adult patients (older than 18).

The pooled proportion of ventilation liberation rate was 48% (95% CI: 31–64, I2 = 87, n = 25 studies] (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 1). There is a high risk of publication bias, as shown by the asymmetrical DOI plot with an LFK index value of 4.28 (major asymmetry) (Figure 3A). Sensitivity analysis did not have a significant impact on the pooled estimate (Supplementary Table 2). The pooled proportion of decannulation rate was 42.0% (95% CI: 17–69, I2 = 95, n = 31 studies] (Figure 4, Supplementary Table 3). There was a mode­rate risk of publication bias as seen in the DOI plot with the LFK index value of 1.32 (minor asymmetry) (Figure 3B). The sensitivity analysis shows no significant impact on the pooled estimate (Supplementary Table 4).

The pooled proportion of hospital mortality was found to be 18% (95% CI: 9–28, I2 = 84, n = 41 studies] (Figure 5, Supplementary Table 5). This can be considered a reasonable estimate of the available data due to less risk of publication bias as seen in the symmetrical DOI plot with an LFK index value of 0.69 (no asymmetry) (Figure 3C). Sensitivity analysis also did not appear to result in a significant change in the pooled estimate (Supplementary Table 6). On subgroup analysis, no significant difference was found in mortality between the PCT (17%; 95% CI: 6–30, n = 14 studies) and ST subgroups (19%; 95% CI: 12–27; n = 19 studies]. The risk of bias is presented in Supplementary Table 7. In most of the reviewed articles, no spread of the disease among health care staff engaged in tracheostomy procedures was reported.

Discussion

COVID-19 patients can develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pneumonia [59]. A substantial number of critically ill patients may require sustained mechanical ventilation. Many harmful effects, e.g. ventilator-associated pneumonia and the disuse myopathy, are related to prolonged mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy is usually performed in individuals who need mechanical ventilation over long periods. The rising number of severe COVID-19 patients led to an imbalance between the volume of patients requiring intensive care and ICU beds and infrastructure provision [60]. As a result, the tracheostomy can provide a crucial measure for individuals’ earlier discharge from the ICU to gene­ral care wards. Patients who are at the hospital with tracheostomy and do need mechanical ventilation can be managed with limited sedation in relatively low-intensity wards [61].

To the best of our knowledge, this is the second systematic review and meta-analysis of the results of tracheostomy in patients suffering from COVID-19. In the previous meta-analysis of tracheostomy outcomes in COVID-19 patients by Benito et al. [62], 18 articles were included up to September 27, 2020. They found the pooled cumulative incidence of mortality to be 13.1% (95% CI: 8.5–18.4%) in these patients. Similarly, the present meta-analysis of 47 arti­cles showed the mortality rate of 18% (95% CI: 9–28) in COVID-19 patients who have undergone a tracheo­stomy. Also, Shah et al. [63] noted a mortality rate of 19.2% in 113,653 tracheostomies in non-COVID-19 patients. Benito et al. [62], in their meta-analysis, reported the cumulative incidence of decannulation as 34.9% (95% CI: 25.4–44.9%) and the ventilator weaning in patients with COVID-19 with tracheotomy as 54.9% (95% CI: 47.3–62.5%). In our meta-analysis, the rates of decannulation and ventilation liberation were 42% (95% CI: 17–69) and 48% (95% CI: 31–64), respectively.

Tracheostomy is an aerosol-producing surgery and can increase the risk of COVID-19 dissemination to healthcare staff [64]. In all the included studies, healthcare personnel (HCP) wore personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect against airborne, contact, and droplet exposures during the procedure [65]. In most of the articles, it is specifically mentioned that there were no cases where health care workers acquired COVID-19 infection after performing a tracheostomy in an infected patient. Out of 47 studies, only one study has reported COVID-19 infection in HCP performing tracheostomies. Angamuthu et al. [41] reported that out of 72 HCP who performed a total of 71 tracheostomies, eleven (15%, 11/72) had COVID-19 symptoms. Ten of these HCPs underwent a COVID-19 test, of whom three tested positive. However, none of the HCP required hospitalisation. This demonstrates that HCP can safely perform tracheostomies in COVID19 patients. Tracheostomies can be performed at the bedside without the patient being transferred to the operating room [32]. This is cost-effective and is linked to a lower risk for other patients and healthcare workers during the pandemic. Most of the included studies showed that most tracheostomies were either without complications or with minimal complications (especially minor bleeding). The minor bleeding can be associated with the use of low molecular weight heparin in most COVID-19 patients as a part of the treatment protocol [66].

Conclusion

The ventilation liberation, decannulation, and mortality rates in COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy were 48% (95% CI: 31–64), 42% (95% CI: 17–69) and 18% (95% CI: 9–28) respectively.

Acknowledgements

1. Financial support and sponsorship: none.

2. Conflict of interest: none.

References

1. Zhu H, Wei L, Niu P. The novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Glob Health Res Policy 2020; 5: 6. doi:10.1186/s41256-020-00135-6.

2. Carter C, Osborn M, Agagah G, Aedy H, Notter J. COVID-19 disease: invasive ventilation. Clinics in Integrated Care 2020; doi:10.1016/ j.intcar.2020.100004.

3. Rovira A, Dawson D, Walker A et al. Tracheostomy care and decannulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06126-0.

4. Bice T, Nelson JE, Carson SS. To trach or not to trach: uncertainty in the care of the chronically critically ill. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 36: 851-858. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1564872.

5. Heyd CP, Desiato VM, Nguyen SA, et al. Tracheostomy protocols during COVID-19 pandemic. Head Neck 2020; 42: 1297-1302. doi: 10.1002/hed.26192.

6. Chao TN, Harbison SP, Braslow BM, et al. Outcomes after tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Ann Surg 2020; 272: e181-e186. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004166.

7. Angel L, Kon ZN, Chang SH, et al. Novel percutaneous tracheostomy for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Ann Thorac Surg 2020; 110: 1006-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.04.010.

8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.

9. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan – a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.

10. Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open 2016; 6: e011458. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458.

11. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials 2015; 45(Pt A): 130-138. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.009.

12. Furuya-Kanamori L, Barendregt JJ, Doi SAR. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analy­sis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018; 16: 195-203. doi: 10.1097/XEB. 0000000000000141.

13. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67: 974-978. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-203104.

14. Zhang X, Huang Q, Niu X, et al. Safe and effective management of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Head Neck 2020; 42: 1374-1381. doi: 10.1002/hed.26261.

15. Ferri E, Boscolo Nata F, Pedruzzi B, et al. Indications and timing for tracheostomy in patients with SARS CoV2-related. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 277: 2403-2404. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06068-7.

16. Volo T, Stritoni P, Battel I, et al. Elective tracheostomy during COVID-19 outbreak: to whom, when, how? Early experience from Venice, Italy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06190-6.

17. Riestra-Ayora J, Yanes-Diaz J, Penuelas O, Molina-Quiros C, Sanz-Fernández R, Martin-Sanz E. Safety and prognosis in percutaneous vs surgical tracheostomy in 27 patients with COVID-19. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 163: 462-464. doi: 10.1177/ 0194599820931801.

18. Broderick D, Kyzas P, Baldwin AJ, et al. Surgical tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients: a multidisciplinary approach and lessons learned. Oral Oncol 2020; 106: 104767. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104767.

19. Turri-Zanoni M, Battaglia P, Czaczkes C, Pelosi P, Castelnuovo P, Cabrini L. Elective tracheostomy during mechanical ventilation in patients affected by COVID-19: preliminary case series from Lombardy, Italy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 163: 135-137. doi: 10.1177/0194599820928963.

20. Martin-Villares C, Perez Molina-Ramirez C, Bartolome-Benito M, Bernal-Sprekelsen M; COVID ORL ESP Collaborative Group (*). Outcome of 1890 tracheostomies for critical COVID-19 patients: a national cohort study in Spain. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06220-3.

21. Betancourt-Ramirez A, Yelon JA, Boland P, Amaturo M. A technique to minimize aerosolization during percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Am Surg 2020; 86: 904-906. doi: 10.1177/0003134820943102.

22. Taboada M, Vazquez S, Regueira J, et al. Safe percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in 5 patients with ARDS by Covid-19. J Clin Anesth 2020; 67: 109977. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109977.

23. Floyd E, Harris SS, Lim JW, Edelstein DR, Filangeri B, Bruni M. Early data from case series of tracheostomy in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 163: 1150-1152. doi: 10.1177/0194599820940655.

24. Kwak PE, Persky MJ, Angel L, Rafeq S, Amin MR. Tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients: why delay or avoid? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 18: 194599820953371. doi: 10.1177/01945998­20953371.

25. Nibbe L, Jungehülsing M, Röber S, Ripberger G, Oppert M. „Hybrid­tracheostomie“ – ein risikoarmes Verfahren der Tracheostomie bei COVID-19-Patienten [“Hybrid tracheostomy”: a low risk procedure for tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients]. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 2020; 115: 585-590. doi: 10.1007/s00063-020-00710-2.

26. Tornari C, Surda P, Takhar A, et al. Tracheostomy, ventilatory wean, and decannulation in COVID-19 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06187-1.

27. Piccin O, Albertini R, Caliceti U, et al. Early experience in tracheostomy and tracheostomy tube management in Covid-19 patients. Am J Otolaryngol 2020; 41: 102535. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102535.

28. Temple B, Segal M, Singh VA, Galvin D, Kerr R, Zingale R. Implementation of a tracheostomy protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2020; 6: 38-43. doi: 10.11648/j.ijcts.20200603.11.

29. Takhar A, Tornari C, Amin N, et al. Percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 pneumonitis patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: initial experience in 51 patients and preliminary outcomes. Authorea 2020. doi: 10.22541/au.158801954.47538762.

30. Smith TG, Ahmad I, Takhar A, Surda P, El-Boghdadly K. Unconventional multidisciplinary team strategy for tracheostomy in COVID-19. Anaesth Rep 2020; 8: 176-180. doi: 10.1002/anr3.12074.

31. Botti C, Lusetti F, Peroni S, et al. The role of tracheotomy and timing of weaning and decannulation in patients affected by severe COVID-19. Ear Nose Throat J 2020; 9: 145561320965196. doi: 10.1177/0145561320965196.

32. Picetti E, Fornaciari A, Taccone FS, et al. Safety of bedside surgical tracheostomy during COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective observational study. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0240014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240014.

33. Gaspari CH, Assumpção I, Freire R, Silva A, Santiso C, Jaccoud AC. The first 60 days: physical therapy in a neurosurgical center converted into a COVID-19 center in Brazil. Phys Ther 2020; 100: 2120-2126. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa175.

34. Zuazua-Gonzalez A, Collazo-Lorduy T, Coello-Casariego G, et al. Surgical tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients: indications, technique, and results in a second-level Spanish hospital. OTO Open 2020; 4: 2473974X20957636. doi: 10.1177/2473974X20957636.

35. Long SM, Chern A, Feit NZ, et al. Percutaneous and open tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: comparison and outcomes of an institutional series in New York City. Ann Surg 2020. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004428.

36. Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham COVID-19 airway team. Safety and 30-day outcomes of tracheostomy for COVID-19: a prospective observational cohort study. Br J Anaesth 2020; 125: 872-879. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.08.023.

37. Yeung E, Hopkins P, Auzinger G, Fan K. Challenges of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients in a tertiary centre in inner city London. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 49: 1385-1391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.08.007.

38. COVIDTrach collaborative. COVIDTrach; the outcomes of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy in the UK: interim report. Br J Surg 2020; 107: e583-e584. doi: 10.1002/bjs.12020.

39. Jonckheere W, Mekeirele M, Hendrickx S, et al. Percutaneous tracheo­stomy for long-term ventilated COVID-19-patients: rationale and first clinical-safe for all-experience. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2020; 52: 366-372. doi: 10.5114/ait.2020.101216.

40. Ovadya D, Bachar K, Peled M, Skudowitz M, Wollner A. Weaning of severe COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients: experience within a dedicated unit in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 2020; 22: 733-735.

41. Angamuthu N, Geraldine Gagasa E, Baker D, Tsui J, Evan D’Souza R. Transmission of infection among health care personnel performing surgical tracheostomies on COVID-19 patients. Surgeon 2021; 12: S1479-666X(21)00028-7. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2021.01.007.

42. Bartier S, La Croix C, Evrard D, et al. Tracheostomies after SARS-CoV-2 intubation, performed by academic otorhinolaryngologists in the Paris area of France: preliminary results. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2021; 4: S1879-7296(21)00049-1. doi: 10.1016/ j.anorl.2021.03.002.

43. Taboada M, Moreno E, Leal S, et al. Long-term outcomes after tracheostomy for COVID-19. Arch Bronconeumol 2021; 57 Suppl 2: 54-56. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2021.01.014.

44. Schuler PJ, Greve J, Hoffmann TK, et al. Surgical tracheostomy in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. HNO 2021; 69: 303-311. doi: 10.1007/ s00106-021-01021-4.

45. Arnold J, Gao CA, Malsin E, et al. Outcomes of percutaneous tracheostomy for patients with SARS-CoV-2 respiratory failure. medRxiv 2021; 25: 2021.02.23.21252231. doi: 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252231.

46. Ahn D, Lee GJ, Choi YS, et al. Timing and clinical outcomes of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19. Br J Surg 2021; 108: e27-e28. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa064.

47. Cardasis JJ, Rasamny JK, Berzofsky CE, Bello JA, Multz AS. Outcomes after tracheostomy for patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Ear Nose Throat J 2021; 11: 145561321993567. doi: 10.1177/0145561321993567.

48. Sebastian SK, Amar PS, Sharma R, Gupta M, Ramesh S. Tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients: surgical concerns and considerations. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021. doi: 10.1007/s12070-021-02383-5.

49. Archer SK, Iezzi CM, Gilpin L. Swallowing and voice outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2021; 30: S0003-9993(21)00089-7. doi: 10.1016/ j.apmr.2021.01.063.

50. Courtney A, Lignos L, Ward PA, Vizcaychipi MP. Surgical tracheo­stomy outcomes in COVID-19-positive patients. OTO Open 2021; 5: 2473974X20984998. doi: 10.1177/2473974X20984998.

51. Xu K, Zhang XH, Long XB, Lu X, Liu Z. An environmental study of tracheostomy on eight COVID-19 patients. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 50: 3. doi: 10.1186/s40463-021-00494-1.

52. Pradhan P, Mishra AK, Mittal Y, et al. Tracheostomy in the COVID19 patients: our experience in 12 cases. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021. doi: 10.1007/s12070-021-02375-5.

53. Mata-Castro N, Sanz-López L, Pinacho-Martínez P, Varillas-Delgado D, Miró-Murillo M, Martín-Delgado MC. Tracheostomy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 reduces time on mechanical ventilation but not intensive care unit stay. Am J Otolaryngol 2021; 42: 102867. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102867.

54. Rovira A, Tricklebank S, Surda P, et al. Open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19: a multicentre comparison and recommendation for future resource utilisation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06597-1.

55. Ahmed Y, Cao A, Thal A, et al. Tracheotomy outcomes in 64 ventilated COVID-19 patients at a high-volume center in Bronx, NY. Laryngoscope 2021. doi: 10.1002/lary.29391.

56. Sancho J, Ferrer S, Lahosa C, et al. Tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: predictors and clinical features. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 278: 3911-3919. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06555-x.

57. Murphy P, Holler E, Lindroth H, et al. Short-term outcomes for patients and providers after elective tracheostomy in COVID-19-positive patients. J Surg Res 2021; 260: 38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jss. 2020.10.013.

58. Rosano A, Martinelli E, Fusina F et al. Early percutaneous tracheo­stomy in coronavirus disease 2019: association with hospital mortality and factors associated with removal of tracheostomy tube at ICU discharge. A cohort study on 121 patients. Crit Care Med 2021; 49: 261-270. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004752.

59. Gibson PG, Qin L, Puah SH. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): clinical features and differences from typical pre-COVID-19 ARDS. Med J Aust 2020; 213: 54-56.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50674.

60. Phua J, Weng L, Ling L, et al. Intensive care management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): challenges and recommendations. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 506-517. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600 (20)30161-2.

61. Jung YJ, Kim Y, Kyoung K, et al. The effect of systematic approach to tracheostomy care in patients transferred from the surgical intensive care unit to general ward. Acute Crit Care 2018; 33: 252-259. doi: 10.4266/acc.2018.00248.

62. Benito DA, Bestourous DE, Tong JY, Pasick LJ, Sataloff RT. Tracheo­tomy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of weaning, decannulation, and survival. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 5: 194599820984780. doi: 10.1177/0194599820984780.

63. Shah RK, Lander L, Berry JG, Nussenbaum B, Merati A, Roberson DW. Tracheotomy outcomes and complications: a national perspective. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 25-29. doi: 10.1002/lary.21907.

64. Harding H, Broom A, Broom J. Aerosol-generating procedures and infective risk to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2: the limits of the evidence. J Hosp Infect 2020; 105: 717-725. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin. 2020.05.037.

65. Valdez AM. Are you covered? Safe practices for the use of personal protective equipment. J Emerg Nurs 2015; 41: 154-157. doi: 10.1016/j.jen. 2014.11.011.

66. Abdel-Maboud M, Menshawy A, Elgebaly A, Bahbah EI, El Ashal G, Negida A. Should we consider heparin prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients? a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2021; 51: 830-832. doi: 10.1007/s11239-020-02253-x.