Endoscopic Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheotomy: A Prospective Evaluation of 500 Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: An evaluation of 500 adult, intubated, intensive care unit patients undergoing endoscopic percutaneous tracheotomy using the multiple and single dilator techniques was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of the procedure as it compares with surgical tracheotomy. Endoscopy was used in all cases and evaluated as an added safety measure in reducing complications. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective evaluation of endoscopic percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy in 500 consecutive adult, intubated intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Between 1990 and 2003, endoscopically guided percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy (PDT) was performed in 500 consecutive adult, intubated patients in the intensive care units (ICU) of three tertiary care adult hospitals. The first 191 patients underwent PDT using the Ciaglia Percutaneous Tracheostomy Introducer Kit (Cook Critical Care Inc., Bloomington, Indiana) and in the remaining 309 patients the Ciaglia Blue Rhino Single Dilator Kit (Cook Critical Care Inc., Bloomington, Indiana) was used. The procedure was contraindicated in the following situations: 1) children, 2) unprotected airway, 3) emergencies, 4) presence of a midline neck mass, 5) inability to palpate the cricoid cartilage, and 6) uncorrectable coagulopathy. The following parameters were recorded preoperatively: age, sex, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) class, body mass index (BMI), and number of days intubated. Recorded hematologic parameters included hemoglobin (Hgb), platelets, prothrombin time (PT), partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and the international normalized ratio (INR) since it became available in 1998. All patients were ventilated on 100% oxygen and vital signs were continuously monitored. Tracheotomy was carried out under continuous endoscopic guidance using a series of graduated dilators in the first 191 cases, and a single, tapered dilator in the remaining 309 patients. The preoperative data on each patient, along with the type of dilator used, the size of the tube, the intraoperative and postoperative complications, and blood loss information were recorded prospectively and maintained in a computer spreadsheet. Univariate analyses were used in each group separately for each type of dilator to assess the risks of a complication within subgroups defined by each parameter/characteristic, and the statistical significance assessed with a chi test, or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The total complication rate was 9.2% (13.6% in the multiple dilator group, and 6.5% in the single dilator group), with more than half of these considered minor. Overall, the two most common complications were oxygen desaturation in 14 cases and bleeding in 12 cases. The absence of serious complications such as pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum are attributable to the use of bronchoscopy. There was no significant association between the rate of complications and age, gender, ASA, weeks intubated, tracheostomy tube size, Hgb levels, platelets, PT, PTT, or INR. There was a statistically significant relationship between experience and the likelihood of complications in the multiple dilator group (P < .0001), with a higher rate of complications in the first 30 patients (40%) compared with 8.7% in the remaining 161 patients. This relationship did not exist for the first 30 patients in the single dilator group. Patients with a BMI of 30 or higher experienced a significantly greater (P < .05) number of complications (15%), compared with an 8% complication rate in patients with a BMI of less than 30. This risk was even more significant for patients with a BMI of 30 or greater who were also in ASA class 4 (11/56 or 20%) (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic PDT is associated with a low complication rate and is at least as safe as surgical tracheotomy in the ICU setting. Bronchoscopy significantly decreases the incidence of complications and should be used routinely. While embraced by critical care physicians, endoscopic PDT has been infrequently performed by otolaryngologists. As the airway experts, otolaryngologists are in the best position to learn and teach the procedure as it should be done.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".