These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bedside tracheostomy in the intensive care unit: a prospective randomized trial comparing open surgical tracheostomy with endoscopically guided percutaneous dilational tracheotomy.
    Author: Massick DD, Yao S, Powell DM, Griesen D, Hobgood T, Allen JN, Schuller DE.
    Journal: Laryngoscope; 2001 Mar; 111(3):494-500. PubMed ID: 11224782.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Objectives of the study were 1) to analyze the complication incidence and resource utilization of two methods of bedside tracheostomy and 2) to define selection criteria for bedside tracheostomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial in the setting of a tertiary care center at a university hospital. METHODS: One hundred sixty-four consecutive intubated patients selected for elective tracheostomy were enrolled. One hundred patients met selection criteria for bedside tracheostomy and were randomly assigned to either open surgical tracheostomy (50) or endoscopically guided percutaneous dilational tracheotomy(50). The remaining 64 patients received open surgical tracheostomies in the operating room. Main outcome measures were 1) perioperative and postoperative complication incidence and 2) resource utilization. RESULTS: Patients meeting our selection criteria for bedside tracheostomy had a significantly reduced perioperative complication rate compared with those who failed to meet these criteria, and subsequently underwent tracheostomy placement in the operating room (5% vs. 20%, P less than or equal to.01). No statistically significant difference was found in the perioperative complication incidence between the two methods of bedside tracheostomy. However, percutaneous tracheostomy placement at the bedside resulted in a significant increase in postoperative complication incidence (16% vs. 2%, P <.05) and incurred an additional patient charge of $436 per bedside procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation prospectively confirms the safety of bedside tracheostomy placement in properly selected patients. Complication incidence and resource utilization are defined for two methods of bedside tracheostomy. The results of this study confirm that open surgical tracheostomy represents the standard of care in bedside tracheostomy placement by providing a more secure airway at a markedly reduced patient charge. These findings will aid in the development of protocols and pathways for surgical airway management in critically ill patients to maximize cost-effective, high-quality care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]