1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an enormous medical demand, and airway management has imposed an especially heavy workload with a risk of infection to healthcare providers [1,2,3]. COVID-19 has various effects on different organs. It can induce acute respiratory distress syndrome and cardiovascular dysfunction [2,4,5,6]. Almost one-third of critically ill COVID-19 patients revealed decreased systolic function in an echocardiography assessment [4]. Left ventricle systolic dysfunction was associated with septic cardiomyopathy, and right ventricle systolic dysfunction was related to pressure overload due to hypercapnia, positive pressure ventilation, and pulmonary embolism [4]. Additionally, COVID-19 affects the gastrointestinal tract, and some patients experience symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. These gastrointestinal symptoms result from direct viral injury, inflammatory response, imbalance in intestinal secretions, and malabsorption [7]. Furthermore, it leads to transient and permanent olfactory dysfunction [8], cutaneous manifestations [9], and coagulation disorders [10].
Among the various organ complications, the most common complication is acute respiratory distress syndrome. Approximately 2.3–22% of patients with COVID-19 require invasive mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube [2,3], and the percentage increases to 42% among critically ill patients [5,11]. In addition, 8% to 13% of patients on mechanical ventilation undergo a tracheostomy for ventilation weaning and prolonged intubation [3,5,12,13].
In general, a tracheostomy is recommended within 7 days of mechanical ventilation because it might provide a lower incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, mortality, sedation, and laryngotracheal stenosis in survivors and reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and the hospital stay [14,15,16]. However, the appropriate time for a tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients has been controversial. Some studies have supported an earlier tracheotomy to reduce the intensive care unit stay, while others have reported that a delayed tracheotomy may be more appropriate given the lack of evidence supporting improved outcomes for an earlier tracheotomy [17,18,19].
Most guidelines about tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients have recommended later tracheostomies to minimize the infection risk of health care workers and to allow prognostic information to become clear and the viral load to potentially decrease [20,21,22,23,24]. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) recommends performing a tracheostomy no earlier than 2 weeks after intubation.
Since the timing of the tracheotomy and the ICU care method are different for COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients, the factors related to decannulation are considered to be different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. As a patient begins to recover from critical complications, medical staff may consider decannulation to facilitate communication and swallowing and prevent tracheostoma-related complications and increased medical burden [25,26]. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the timing and clinical factors for successful decannulation in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, in this study, we compared the clinical factors between successful and failed decannulation groups among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and investigated the causes of decannulation failure in a single tertiary hospital.
2. Subjects and Methods
2.1. Enrolled Patients and Clinical Factors
We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent tracheostomies between September 2020 and March 2022 at a single tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea. All the patients included in this study were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for mechanical ventilation. We performed tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients during the same study period and conducted a comparative analysis between these two groups. The Institutional Review Board of the authors’ hospital approved this retrospective study (Approval No. 2022-11-030).
All the patients were observed for longer than six months, and we excluded the patients who died within three months after their tracheostomy. All the patients were screened for COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swabs.
2.2. Definition of Successful and Failed Decannulation
Successful decannulation was defined as decannulation within three months of the tracheostomy. Failed decannulation was defined as inability to remove the tracheostoma within three months of the tracheostomy or a permanent tracheostoma. The enrolled patients were classified into two groups: the successful decannulation group and the failed decannulation group.
The patients expecting decannulation were sent for consultation with the department of otorhinolaryngology—head and neck surgery. We evaluated their vocal fold mobility, saliva pooling, upper airway patency, tracheostoma, suprastoma, and infrastoma using a rigid and flexible nasopharyngeal endoscope. The patients who had aspiration symptoms received a modified barium swallow test for objective evaluation.
The patients who had a patent upper airway without objective and subjective aspiration and no demand for mechanical ventilation and oxygen underwent decannulation. First, the cannula was maintained in a deballooning state for one week, and then a fenestrated cannula was maintained for one week. After that, the cannula was corked. If there were no abnormal findings for one week, the cannula was removed, and the tracheostoma was closed through spontaneous healing without operation.
2.3. Clinical Factors Related to Decannulation
Clinical factors were collected, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI, weight (kg)/height (m)2), and comorbid disease. The admission period, intubation period, and time between the tracheostomy and successful decannulation were also investigated.
This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital, indicating that a majority of the patients had been transferred from other medical facilities. Consequently, the admission period was calculated from the date of transfer to the present hospital. The intubation procedures were carried out in negative-pressure isolation rooms within the intensive care unit, and the intubation period was defined as the duration from the day of intubation to the day of tracheostomy. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the timeline and outcomes, the time between the tracheostomy and successful decannulation was computed from the day of the tracheostomy to the day of decannulation following examination by an otolaryngologist.
The causes of decannulation failure consisted of ventilator and oxygen dependency, recurrent/prolonged pneumonia, swallowing dysfunction, cardiovascular failure, and impaired cognitive function. Swallowing dysfunction included aspiration symptoms and dysphagia. Patients with subjective complaints of swallowing dysfunction underwent modified barium studies (MBSs), with additional MBSs performed based on clinical progression.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
A comprehensive analysis of clinical factors was undertaken, involving a statistical comparison between the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups. Additionally, a detailed exploration extended to comparisons between the groups that experienced successful and failed decannulation. The continuous variables underwent scrutiny via the Mann–Whitney U test, while the categorical variables were meticulously examined using Fisher’s exact test. The threshold for statistical significance was set at a p-value less than 0.05. Notably, all the statistical analyses were meticulously executed using SPSS for Windows version 26.0, developed by SPSS Inc. in Chicago, IL, USA.
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 Patients Who Received Tracheostomies
In this study, a total of 82 non-COVID-19 patients were included, while there were 56 COVID-19 patients during the same enroll period (Table 1). The mean age was 66.6 ± 11.7 years in the non-COVID-19 group and 65.5 ± 9.7 years in the COVID-19 group, and it was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.673). The sex distribution was also not significantly different (p = 0.098) between the non-COVID-19 (47 (57.3%) males and 35 (42.7%) females) and the COVID-19 (39 (69.6%) males and 17 (30.4%) females) groups. The body mass index showed no statistical difference (p = 0.401) between the non-COVID-19 (25.8 ± 8.0 kg/m2) and COVID-19 (24.8 ± 3.6 kg/m2) groups. The comorbid diseases consisted of none (n = 7, 8.5%), cardiovascular (n = 15, 18.3%), cerebrovascular (n = 22, 26.8%), pulmonary (n = 9, 11.0%), and other disease (n = 29, 35.4%) in the non-COVID-19 group and of none (n = 8, 14.3%), cardiovascular (n = 10, 17.9%), cerebrovascular (n = 11, 19.6%), pulmonary (n = 6, 10.7%), and other disease (n = 21, 37.5%) in the COVID-19 group. The admission period and intubation period were not significantly different (p = 0.424 and 0.260, respectively) between the non-COVID-19 (73.2 ± 42.7 and 11.6 ± 13.0 days) and COVID-19 (90.6 ± 47.9 and 9.5 ± 2.9 days) groups. Successful decannulation, which means successful tracheostoma removal within three months, was not significantly different (p = 0.106) between the non-COVID-19 (n = 37, 60.8%) and COVID-19 (n = 23, 41.1%) groups.
3.2. Causes of Failed Decannulation
The most prevalent cause of decannulation failure in both the non-COVID-19 group (n = 25, 53.3%) and the COVID-19 group (n = 19, 57.6%) were ventilator dependency or increased oxygen demand (Table 2). Other causes of failure were recurrent and prolonged pneumonia and poor lung conditions (n = 18, 40.0%), impaired cognitive function or cerebrovascular accident (n = 13, 28.9%), and cardiovascular failure (n = 6, 13.3%) in the non-COVID-19 group. In the COVID-19 group, other failure causes consisted of recurrent and prolonged pneumonia (n = 14, 42.4%), impaired cognitive function or cerebrovascular accident (n = 11, 33.3%), and cardiovascular failure (n = 2, 6.1%). It is important to note that there were no significant differences in the causes of failure between the two groups, except for swallowing problems. Swallowing problems were significantly more prevalent (p = 0.031) in the COVID group (n = 14, 42.4%) than in the non-COVID group (n = 9, 20.0%).
Airway stenosis and vocal fold paralysis were not causes of decannulation failure in either the non-COVID-19 or the COVID-19 patients.
3.3. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Successful and Failed Decannulation Group in COVID-19 Patients
Successful decannulation was accomplished in 23 (41.1%) patients, while 33 patients (58.9%) had a failed decannulation (Table 3). The mean age for the successful decannulation group was 66.2 ± 9.0 years, and it was 65.9 ± 14.0 years for the failed decannulation group, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.341). The distribution of sex also exhibited no significant difference (p = 0.992) between the successful group (16 (69.6%) males and 7 (30.4%) females) and the failed decannulation group (23 (69.7%) males and 10 (30.3%) females). The body mass index (BMI) was higher in the failed decannulation groups (28.0 ± 12.6 kg/m2) than in the successful decannulation group (23.7 ± 4.1 kg/m2), but there was no statistical significance (p = 0.641).
Regarding comorbid conditions, the successful decannulation group consisted of patients with various conditions, including none (n = 5, 21.7%), cardiovascular (n = 3, 13.0%), cerebrovascular (n = 5, 21.7%), pulmonary (n = 3, 13.0%), and other diseases (n = 7, 30.4%). On the other hand, the failed decannulation group included patients with the following comorbidities: none (n = 3, 9.1%), cardiovascular (n = 7, 21.2%), cerebrovascular (n = 6, 18.2%), pulmonary (n = 3, 9.1%), and other diseases (n = 14, 32.4%). The duration of admission and intubation did not show significant differences (p = 0.297 and 0.097, respectively) between the successful decannulation group (74.0 ± 29.4 days and 9.7 ± 2.8 days, respectively) and the failed decannulation group (73.6 ± 64.0 days and 8.5 ± 3.8 days, respectively). In the failed decannulation group, 3 patients (9.1%) achieved decannulation within 3–6 months after tracheostomy, while 30 patients (90.9%) maintained tracheostomy for more than six months.
3.4. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics between Successful and Failed Decannulation Groups in Non-COVID-19 Patients
In the non-COVID-19 patients, 37 patients (45.1%) achieved successful decannulation, while 45 patients (54.9%) experienced decannulation failure (Table 4). The mean age for the successful decannulation group was 66.6 ± 11.5 years, and it was 66.2 ± 11.5 years for the failed decannulation group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.797). The distribution of sex also showed no significant variation (p = 0.152) between the successful group, consisting of 24 males (64.9%) and 13 females (35.1%), and the failed decannulation group, including 23 males (51.1%) and 22 females (48.9%). The body mass index (BMI) did not exhibit any statistically significant difference (p = 0.554) between the successful group (25.4 ± 7.0 kg/m2) and the failed group (25.9 ± 8.2 kg/m2).
The only statistically significant difference (p = 0.047) between the two groups was observed in the composition of comorbid conditions. Comorbid disease in the successful decannulation group was composed of none (n = 3, 8.1%), cardiovascular (n = 7, 18.9%), cerebrovascular (n = 6, 16.2%), pulmonary (n = 2, 5.4%), and other diseases (n = 19, 51.4%). In contrast, the failed decannulation group, when compared to the successful decannulation group, had a relatively higher proportion of cerebrovascular (n = 16, 35.6%) and pulmonary diseases (n = 7, 15.6%), and the remaining patients in the failed decannulation group had none (n = 4, 8.9%), cardiovascular (n = 8, 17.8%), and other diseases (n = 10, 22.2%). There were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.699 and 0.722, respectively) in the duration of hospital admission and intubation periods between the successful decannulation group (71.2 ± 26.4 days and 11.0 ± 12.0 days, respectively) and the failed decannulation group (77.8 ± 82.1 days and 14.1 ± 12.8 days, respectively). Within the failed decannulation group, there were 17 patients (37.8%) who successfully achieved decannulation between 3 and 6 months, while 28 patients (62.2%) had a prolonged tracheostoma for more than 6 months.
4. Discussion
The primary factor contributing to decannulation failure in both the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients was the need for mechanical ventilator support and oxygen in this study. In the non-COVID-19 patients, factors such as underlying conditions, specifically cerebrovascular diseases, were identified as substantial factors in the decannulation process. Conversely, for the COVID-19 patients, it is suggested that post-infection complications, particularly issues related to swallowing such as aspiration and dysphagia, may play a significant role in impeding the decannulation process.
In this manner, the factors influencing decannulation appear to differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, likely attributed to the disparate nature of critical care in these two patient groups. Critically ill COVID-19 patients often face limitations in tests, rehabilitation, and dietary interventions, making it challenging for them to actively engage in nutritional and rehabilitation efforts compared to non-COVID-19 patients. Although not specifically analyzed in our data, it is noteworthy that ICU care for COVID-19 patients frequently involves tube feeding, and oral intake may be deferred until isolation is lifted. Consequently, these factors could contribute to the development of swallowing problems and potentially lead to delayed decannulation. Therefore, when managing patients with respiratory conditions, including those with COVID-19 requiring isolation, it is crucial to be mindful of these aspects for effective clinical care.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to enormous demands on healthcare systems worldwide, especially in critical care, due to approximately 2–5% of patients with COVID-19 requiring airway management with mechanical ventilation and a tracheostomy [1,2,3,11,12,27].
In our study, demographic and clinical variables including age, sex, BMI, and underlying diseases between the COVD-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were not different. However, decannulation failure due to swallowing problems among the COVID-19 patients was notably high, at 42.4% compared to 20.0% in the non-COVID-19 patients. This is presumed to be associated with delayed oral intake and delayed swallowing evaluation and rehabilitation, as COVID-19 patients tend to minimize medical interventions for prevention of infection among healthcare providers.
Moreover, a higher prevalence of underlying diseases, such as cerebrovascular diseases (35.6%) like brain infarction, was observed in the decannulation failure group among the non-COVID-19 patients. However, in the COVID-19 patients, there was no difference in the prevalence of underlying diseases between the successful and failed decannulation groups. Based on this study, we assumed that post-COVID-19 complications such as aspiration and dysphagia, which affect swallowing, may have significantly impacted decannulation in the COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, in the non-COVID-19 patients, underlying conditions such as cerebrovascular diseases appeared to play a crucial role in influencing the decannulation process.
In both cohorts of patients, those with COVID-19 and those without, the leading cause of decannulation failure was found to be the dependence on mechanical ventilation or the need for supplemental oxygen, closely followed by recurrent and prolonged pneumonia. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) initiates a pathological cascade characterized by diffuse alveolar damage in the lungs [28,29]. In the initial phase, hyaline membrane formation occurs within the alveoli, followed by interstitial widening, edema, and fibroblast proliferation during the subsequent organizing stage [28,29].
The pathological progression of COVID-19-associated ARDS mirrors the typical changes observed in ARDS, notably featuring diffuse alveolar damage in the lungs [30,31]. As patients navigate the course of their illness, recent reports on the extended outcomes of ARDS associated with COVID-19 highlight the emergence of lung fibrosis. A study revealed that approximately 17% of patients exhibited fibrous stripes in chest CT scans, suggesting the potential development of fibrous lesions during the healing phase of pulmonary chronic inflammation or proliferative diseases, which are gradually replaced by scar tissues [31].
Comparative analyses between COVID-19-related ARDS and ARDS from other etiologies highlight the graver outcomes associated with the former. The mortality rates in the intensive care unit and hospital for typical ARDS are reported as 35.3% (95% CI, 33.3–37.2%) and 40.0% (95% CI, 38.1–42.1%), respectively. Conversely, in COVID-19 ARDS, mortality rates range from 26% to 61.5% when admitted to critical care, and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation, mortality can fluctuate between 65.7% to 94%. The identified risk factors for unfavorable outcomes encompass older age, comorbidities such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus, lower lymphocyte counts, kidney injury, and elevated D-dimer levels. The multifaceted causes of death in COVID-19 ARDS include respiratory failure (53%), respiratory failure combined with cardiac failure (33%), myocardial damage, and circulatory failure (7%), or death from an unknown cause [29]. This comprehensive understanding of the intricate interplay between various factors contributing to decannulation failure and the nuanced progression of ARDS, particularly in the context of COVID-19, underscores the complexity of managing these critically ill patients and informs potential avenues for targeted interventions and improved patient care strategies.
In the era of COVID-19, the indications and timing of tracheostomies in COVID-19 patients have changed compared to those of patients receiving conventional critical care. Most guidelines recommend a later tracheostomy, two weeks after the diagnosis of COVID-19, to lower the infection risk of health care providers and allow time for the patient’s prognosis to become clear [20,21,22]. In this study, we performed tracheostomies relatively early (9.7 ± 2.8 days in the successful decannulation group and 8.5 ± 3.8 days in the failed decannulation group). Since the patients in this study were transferred to critical care after being treated at another hospital, the time to receiving the tracheostomy was relatively short. Likewise, the general clinical situation in the era of COVID-19 has changed, and management of tracheostomies is different from past years. Prolonged intubation in COVID-19 patients might induce voice, swallowing, and airway dysfunction such as vocal cord palsy, dysphagia, and laryngotracheal stenosis, which can impact morbidity and mortality [32,33]. However, there is a lack of knowledge about clinical courses and decannulation in patients with COVID-19. Such analysis is necessary, because tracheostomas increase medical costs and the burden on caregivers. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the clinical factors between the successful and failed decannulation groups and investigated the causes of failed decannulation. Ventilator dependency and oxygen demand were the most common causes (57.6%) of failed decannulation in the COVID-19 patients in this study. Previous research on decannulation in COVID-19 patients also found that higher oxygen demand and peak cough flow were independent risk factors for delayed decannulation [34].
Recurrent and prolonged pneumonia after COVID-19 infection has been associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome [35], and it was one of the major causes of decannulation failure in this study. However, this was also identified as one of the main causes of decannulation failure in non-COVID-19 patients with a high prevalence.
COVID-19 patients receiving critical care have difficulty with active respiration and swallowing rehabilitation due to limited contact with professional medical staff. Therefore, there is a high possibility of delayed decannulation in COVID-19 patients. The role of swallowing rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19 has not been reported, despite many of these patients presenting with dysphagia in acute care hospitals. Dysphagia is a well-known risk factor for aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, increased length of hospital admission, and higher mortality [36,37,38,39]. A previous study on dysphagia in COVID-19 patients reported that 28.9% of patients appealed to dysphagia, and swallowing function became normal after active rehabilitation [40]. We also found that many patients suffered dysphagia and aspiration, and 42.4% of the patients failed to achieve decannulation because of aspiration and swallowing problems. Therefore, we expected that active swallowing and respiration rehabilitation could facilitate early decannulation.
When comparing the decannulation success and failure groups in the non-COVID-19 group, a significant difference was observed in the underlying diseases, with cerebrovascular disease accounting for the highest proportion in the failure group at 35.6%. It is believed that patients failing decannulation due to swallowing problems such as aspiration and dysphagia caused by cerebrovascular disease are relatively more prevalent in non-COVID-19 patients, making it a more significant factor in this study. Interestingly, there were no patients with airway stenosis or vocal fold paralysis among those with failed decannulation in our cohort, and these are the major causes of decannulation failure in non-COVID-19 patients.
There are several limitations to our study. This was a retrospective single-center study with a small number of subjects, and it could not establish a definitive conclusion. In addition, most patients were transferred to our hospital after several days of treatment at another hospital. However, we expect that our investigation into decannulation will provide useful information and might allow for appropriate treatment decisions in future outbreaks of respiratory infectious diseases.
In conclusion, ventilator and oxygen demand was the major cause of decannulation failure in both the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. In the non-COVID-19 patients, underlying conditions such as cerebrovascular diseases are considered to have a significant impact on the decannulation process. On the other hand, it is inferred that post-COVID-19 complications, notably swallowing problems including aspiration and dysphagia, are likely to significantly influence decannulation among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, medical professionals should consider early and active respiratory and swallowing rehabilitation to facilitate successful decannulation in COVID-19 patients.
Conceptualization, S.H.J., J.H.P., N.C. and G.J.L.; methodology, H.Y. and H.K.; formal analysis, S.H.J., J.H.P., N.C. and G.J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H.J., J.H.P., N.C. and G.J.L.; writing—review and editing, S.H.J., J.H.P., N.C. and G.J.L.; supervision, N.C. and G.J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The Institutional Review Board of the authors’ hospital approved this retrospective study (Approval No. 2022-11-030).
Patient consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board due to the pseudonymized handling of retrospective data.
All data included in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Comparison of clinical factors between non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 pneumonia patients who received tracheostomies.
| Non-COVID-19 | COVID-19 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n, %) | 82 (59.4) | 56 (40.6) | |
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 66.6 ± 11.7 | 65.5 ± 9.7 | 0.673 |
| Sex (M:F, n, %) | 47:35 (57.3:42.7) | 39:17 (69.6:30.4) | 0.098 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2, mean ± SD) | 25.8 ± 8.0 | 24.8 ± 3.6 | 0.401 |
| Underlying disease (n, %) | 0.777 | ||
| None | 7 (8.5) | 8 (14.3) | |
| Cardiovascular disease | 15 (18.3) | 10 (17.9) | |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 22 (26.8) | 11 (19.6) | |
| Pulmonary disease | 9 (11.0) | 6 (10.7) | |
| Others (DM/HTN/renal/liver disease) | 29 (35.4) | 21 (37.5) | |
| Admission period (days, mean ± SD) | 73.2 ± 42.7 | 90.6 ± 47.9 | 0.424 |
| Intubation period (days, mean ± SD) | 11.6 ± 13.0 | 9.5 ± 2.9 | 0.260 |
| Decannulation time | |||
| Successful decannulation within 3 months * | 37 (45.1) | 23 (41.1) | 0.106 |
| Failed decannulation (decannulation over 3 months) | 45 (54.9) | 33 (58.9) |
SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension. * Successful decannulation: successful tracheostoma removal within three months.
Comparison of the causes of decannulation failure between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.
| Cause of Failure | Non-COVID | COVID | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of total patients | 82 | 56 | |
| No. of decannulation failure patients | 45 (54.9) | 33 (58.9) | |
| Ventilator dependency or oxygen demand | 25 (53.3) | 19 (57.6) | 0.859 |
| Recurrent and prolonged pneumonia | 18 (40.0) | 14 (42.4) | 0.830 |
| Impaired cognitive function or cerebrovascular accident | 13 (28.9) | 11 (33.3) | 0.104 |
| Swallowing problems | 9 (20.0) | 14 (42.4) | 0.031 |
| Cardiovascular failure | 6 (13.3) | 2 (6.1) | 0.065 |
“Successful decannulation” was defined as the removal of the tracheostomy tube within 3 months after the tracheostomy procedure, while “decannulation failure” was defined as the presence of a persistent tracheostoma for more than 3 months. Swallowing problems encompassed aspects such as aspiration and dysphagia and were objectively evaluated through modified barium studies.
Clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who received tracheostomies (n = 56).
| Successful Decannulation * | Failed Decannulation † | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n, %) | 23 (41.1%) | 33 (58.9%) | |
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 66.2 ± 9.0 | 65.9 ± 14.0 | 0.341 |
| Sex (M:F, n, %) | 16:7 (69.6:30.4) | 23:10 (69.7:30.3) | 0.992 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2, mean ± SD) | 23.7 ± 4.1 | 28.0 ± 12.6 | 0.641 |
| Underlying disease (n, %) | 0.587 | ||
| None | 5 (21.7) | 3 (9.1) | |
| Cardiovascular disease | 3 (13.0) | 7 (21.2) | |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 5 (21.7) | 6 (18.2) | |
| Pulmonary disease | 3 (13.0) | 3 (9.1) | |
| Others (DM/HTN/renal/liver disease) | 7 (30.4) | 14 (32.4) | |
| Admission period (days, mean ± SD) | 74.0 ± 29.4 | 73.6 ± 64.0 | 0.297 |
| Intubation period (days, mean ± SD) | 9.7 ± 2.8 | 8.5 ± 3.8 | 0.098 |
| Decannulation time | |||
| Within 3 months | 23 (100) | ||
| 3–6 months | - | 3 (9.1) | |
| More than 6 months or permanent tracheostoma | - | 30 (90.9) |
SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension. * Successful decannulation: successful tracheostoma removal within three months † Failed decannulation: prolonged tracheostoma for more than three months or permanent tracheostoma.
Clinical characteristics of non-COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomies (n = 82).
| Successful Decannulation * | Failed Decannulation † | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n, %) | 37 (45.1) | 45 (54.9) | |
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 66.6 ± 11.5 | 66.2 ± 11.5 | 0.797 |
| Sex (M:F, n, %) | 24:13 (64.9:35.1) | 23:22 |
0.152 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2, mean ± SD) | 25.4 ± 7.0 | 25.9 ± 8.2 | 0.554 |
| Underlying disease (n, %) | 0.047 | ||
| None | 3 (8.1) | 4 (8.9) | |
| Cardiovascular disease | 7 (18.9) | 8 (17.8) | |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 6 (16.2) | 16 (35.6) | |
| Pulmonary disease | 2 (5.4) | 7 (15.6) | |
| Others (DM/HTN/renal/liver disease) | 19 (51.4) | 10 (22.2) | |
| Admission period (days, mean ± SD) | 71.2 ± 26.4 | 77.8 ± 82.1 | 0.699 |
| Intubation period (days, mean ± SD) | 11.0 ± 12.0 | 14.1 ± 12.8 | 0.722 |
| Decannulation time | |||
| Within 3 months | 37 (35.1) | ||
| 3–6 months | - | 17 (37.8) | |
| More than 6 months or permanent tracheostoma | - | 28 (62.2) |
SD, standard deviation; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension. * Successful decannulation: successful tracheostoma removal within three months. † Failed decannulation: prolonged tracheostoma for more than three months or permanent tracheostoma.
References
1. Schultz, M.J.; Pattnaik, R.; Dondorp, A.M. Walking the line between benefit and harm from tracheostomy in COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med.; 2020; 8, pp. 656-657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30231-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32422179]
2. Richardson, S.; Hirsch, J.S.; Narasimhan, M.; Crawford, J.M.; McGinn, T.; Davidson, K.W.; Barnaby, D.P.; Becker, L.B.; Chelico, J.D.; Cohen, S.L. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area. JAMA; 2020; 323, pp. 2052-2059. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6775] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32320003]
3. Cummings, M.J.; Baldwin, M.R.; Abrams, D.; Jacobson, S.D.; Meyer, B.J.; Balough, E.M.; Aaron, J.G.; Claassen, J.; Rabbani, L.E.; Hastie, J. et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: A prospective cohort study. Lancet; 2020; 395, pp. 1763-1770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32442528]
4. Huang, S.; Vignon, P.; Mekontso-Dessap, A.; Tran, S.; Prat, G.; Chew, M.; Balik, M.; Sanfilippo, F.; Banauch, G.; Clau-Terre, F. Echocardiography findings in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units: A multi-national observational study (the ECHO-COVID study). Intensive Care Med.; 2022; 48, pp. 667-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06685-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35445822]
5. Yang, X.; Yu, Y.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.; Liu, H.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yu, Z.; Fang, M.; Yu, T. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: A single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir. Med.; 2020; 8, pp. 475-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32105632]
6. Huang, S.; Vieillard-Baron, A.; Evrard, B.; Prat, G.; Chew, M.S.; Balik, M.; Clau-Terré, F.; De Backer, D.; Mekontso Dessap, A.; Orde, S. Echocardiography phenotypes of right ventricular involvement in COVID-19 ARDS patients and ICU mortality: Post-hoc (exploratory) analysis of repeated data from the ECHO-COVID study. Intensive Care Med.; 2023; 49, pp. 946-956. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07147-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37436445]
7. Kariyawasam, J.C.; Jayarajah, U.; Riza, R.; Abeysuriya, V.; Seneviratne, S.L. Gastrointestinal manifestations in COVID-19. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg.; 2021; 115, pp. 1362-1388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trab042] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33728439]
8. Karamali, K.; Elliott, M.; Hopkins, C. COVID-19 related olfactory dysfunction. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.; 2022; 30, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000783]
9. Wollina, U.; Karadağ, A.S.; Rowland-Payne, C.; Chiriac, A.; Lotti, T. Cutaneous signs in COVID-19 patients: A review. Dermatol. Ther.; 2020; 33, e13549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dth.13549]
10. Iba, T.; Levy, J.H.; Levi, M.; Thachil, J. Coagulopathy in COVID-19. J. Thromb. Haemost.; 2020; 18, pp. 2103-2109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jth.14975]
11. Guan, W.J.; Ni, Z.Y.; Hu, Y.; Liang, W.H.; Ou, C.Q.; He, J.X.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.; Lei, C.L.; Hui, D.S.C. et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N. Engl. J. Med.; 2020; 382, pp. 1708-1720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2002032] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32109013]
12. Mehta, A.B.; Syeda, S.N.; Bajpayee, L.; Cooke, C.R.; Walkey, A.J.; Wiener, R.S. Trends in Tracheostomy for Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the United States, 1993–2012. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.; 2015; 192, pp. 446-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201502-0239OC] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25955332]
13. Gold, J.A.W.; Wong, K.K.; Szablewski, C.M.; Patel, P.R.; Rossow, J.; da Silva, J.; Natarajan, P.; Morris, S.B.; Fanfair, R.N.; Rogers-Brown, J. et al. Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Adult Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19—Georgia, March 2020. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.; 2020; 69, pp. 545-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6918e1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32379729]
14. Adly, A.; Youssef, T.A.; El-Begermy, M.M.; Younis, H.M. Timing of tracheostomy in patients with prolonged endotracheal intubation: A systematic review. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2018; 275, pp. 679-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4838-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29255970]
15. Curry, S.D.; Rowan, P.J. Laryngotracheal Stenosis in Early vs Late Tracheostomy: A Systematic Review. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.; 2020; 162, pp. 160-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599819889690] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31766966]
16. Wang, R.; Pan, C.; Wang, X.; Xu, F.; Jiang, S.; Li, M. The impact of tracheotomy timing in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials with trial sequential analysis. Heart Lung; 2019; 48, pp. 46-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.09.005] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30336945]
17. Liao, D.Z.; Mehta, V.; Kinkhabwala, C.M.; Li, D.; Palsen, S.; Schiff, B.A. The safety and efficacy of open bedside tracheotomy: A retrospective analysis of 1000 patients. Laryngoscope; 2020; 130, pp. 1263-1269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.28234] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31403711]
18. David, A.P.; Russell, M.D.; El-Sayed, I.H.; Russell, M.S. Tracheostomy guidelines developed at a large academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Head Neck; 2020; 42, pp. 1291-1296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hed.26191]
19. Ferri, E.; Boscolo Nata, F.; Pedruzzi, B.; Campolieti, G.; Scotto di Clemente, F.; Baratto, F.; Cristalli, G. Indications and timing for tracheostomy in patients with SARS-CoV2-related. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2020; 277, pp. 2403-2404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06068-7]
20. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Tracheotomy Recommendations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020; Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/eid.htm.https://www.entnet.org/resource/tracheotomy-recommendations-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-2/ (accessed on 5 September 2022).
21. Schultz, P.; Morvan, J.B.; Fakhry, N.; Moriniere, S.; Vergez, S.; Lacroix, C.; Bartier, S.; Barry, B.; Babin, E.; Couloigner, V. et al. French consensus regarding precautions during tracheostomy and post-tracheostomy care in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis.; 2020; 137, pp. 167-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2020.04.006]
22. Takhar, A.; Walker, A.; Tricklebank, S.; Wyncoll, D.; Hart, N.; Jacob, T.; Arora, A.; Skilbeck, C.; Simo, R.; Surda, P. Recommendation of a practical guideline for safe tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2020; 277, pp. 2173-2184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05993-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32314050]
23. Delides, A.; Maragoudakis, P.; Nikolopoulos, T. Timing of Tracheotomy in Intubated Patients With COVID-19. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg.; 2020; 163, pp. 328-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599820930668] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32427056]
24. Jacob, T.; Walker, A.; Mantelakis, A.; Gibbins, N.; Keane, O. A framework for open tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Clin. Otolaryngol.; 2020; 45, pp. 649-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13549] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32285555]
25. Dawson, D. Essential principles: Tracheostomy care in the adult patient. Nurs. Crit. Care; 2014; 19, pp. 63-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12076] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529106]
26. Tembo, A.C.; Higgins, I.; Parker, V. The experience of communication difficulties in critically ill patients in and beyond intensive care: Findings from a larger phenomenological study. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs.; 2015; 31, pp. 171-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2014.10.004]
27. ICNARC. ICNARC Report on COVID-19 in Critical Care. 10 April 2020; Available online: https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c31dd38d-d77b-ea11-9124-00505601089b (accessed on 5 September 2022).
28. Fox, S.E.; Akmatbekov, A.; Harbert, J.L.; Li, G.; Brown, J.Q.; Vander Heide, R.S. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in African American patients with COVID-19: An autopsy series from New Orleans. Lancet Respir. Med.; 2020; 8, pp. 681-686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30243-5]
29. Tian, S.; Xiong, Y.; Liu, H.; Niu, L.; Guo, J.; Liao, M.; Xiao, S.-Y. Pathological study of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) through postmortem core biopsies. Mod. Pathol.; 2020; 33, pp. 1007-1014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-020-0536-x]
30. Chen, J.-Y.; Qiao, K.; Liu, F.; Wu, B.; Xu, X.; Jiao, G.-Q.; Lu, R.-G.; Li, H.-X.; Zhao, J.; Huang, J. Lung transplantation as therapeutic option in acute respiratory distress syndrome for coronavirus disease 2019-related pulmonary fibrosis. Chin. Med. J.; 2020; 133, pp. 1390-1396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000839]
31. Ye, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Song, B. Chest CT manifestations of new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A pictorial review. Eur. Radiol.; 2020; 30, pp. 4381-4389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06801-0]
32. Piazza, C.; Filauro, M.; Peretti, G. Reply to: Letter to the editor regarding “Long-term intubation and high rate of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients might determine an unprecedented increase of airway stenoses: A call to action from the European Laryngological Society” by Piazza et al. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2021; 278, pp. 1711-1712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06715-7]
33. Brodsky, M.B.; Levy, M.J.; Jedlanek, E.; Pandian, V.; Blackford, B.; Price, C.; Cole, G.; Hillel, A.T.; Best, S.R.; Akst, L.M. Laryngeal Injury and Upper Airway Symptoms After Oral Endotracheal Intubation With Mechanical Ventilation During Critical Care: A Systematic Review. Crit. Care Med.; 2018; 46, pp. 2010-2017. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003368] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30096101]
34. Tornari, C.; Surda, P.; Takhar, A.; Amin, N.; Dinham, A.; Harding, R.; Ranford, D.A.; Archer, S.K.; Wyncoll, D.; Tricklebank, S. et al. Tracheostomy, ventilatory wean, and decannulation in COVID-19 patients. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.; 2021; 278, pp. 1595-1604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06187-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32740720]
35. Attaway, A.H.; Scheraga, R.G.; Bhimraj, A.; Biehl, M.; Hatipoglu, U. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia: Pathogenesis and clinical management. BMJ; 2021; 372, n436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n436] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33692022]
36. Macht, M.; Wimbish, T.; Clark, B.J.; Benson, A.B.; Burnham, E.L.; Williams, A.; Moss, M. Postextubation dysphagia is persistent and associated with poor outcomes in survivors of critical illness. Crit. Care; 2011; 15, R231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc10472] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21958475]
37. Schefold, J.C.; Berger, D.; Zurcher, P.; Lensch, M.; Perren, A.; Jakob, S.M.; Parviainen, I.; Takala, J. Dysphagia in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients (DYnAMICS): A Prospective Observational Trial. Crit. Care Med.; 2017; 45, pp. 2061-2069. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002765]
38. Macht, M.; King, C.J.; Wimbish, T.; Clark, B.J.; Benson, A.B.; Burnham, E.L.; Williams, A.; Moss, M. Post-extubation dysphagia is associated with longer hospitalization in survivors of critical illness with neurologic impairment. Crit. Care; 2013; 17, R119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12791]
39. Skoretz, S.A.; Flowers, H.L.; Martino, R. The incidence of dysphagia following endotracheal intubation: A systematic review. Chest; 2010; 137, pp. 665-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-1823]
40. Dawson, C.; Capewell, R.; Ellis, S.; Matthews, S.; Adamson, S.; Wood, M.; Fitch, L.; Reid, K.; Shaw, M.; Wheeler, J. et al. Dysphagia presentation and management following COVID-19: An acute care tertiary centre experience. J. Laryngol. Otol.; 2020; 134, pp. 981-986. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215120002443]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: We compared decannulation-related factors between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy. Subjects and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a tracheostomy. The clinical factors were compared between the successful (decannulation within 3 months) and failed decannulation (decannulation over 3 months) groups in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Results: The successful decannulation rates were 41.1% in COVID-19 and 45.1% in non-COVID-19 patients, with no significant differences in demographic and clinical factors between the two groups. In the non-COVID-19 patients, the failed decannulation group had a higher proportion of cerebrovascular and pulmonary diseases. Ventilator dependency or increased oxygen demand was the primary cause of decannulation failure in both groups, with no significant differences except for a higher prevalence of swallowing problems in the COVID-19 group (42.4% vs. 20.0%). Conclusions: The predominant cause of decannulation failure was ventilator and oxygen demand in both the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. In the non-COVID-19 patients, underlying cerebrovascular diseases were considered to have a significant impact on the decannulation process. On the other hand, swallowing problems significantly influenced decannulation among the COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we should consider early and active respiratory and swallowing rehabilitation to facilitate successful decannulation in COVID-19 patients.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Kim, Heejung 3 ; Lee, Gil Joon 4
; Choi, Nayeon 1
1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea;
2 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University College of Medicine, Jeju 63243, Republic of Korea;
3 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Myongi Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Ilsan 10475, Republic of Korea;
4 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu 41944, Republic of Korea