+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis

      , , , ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine whether percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) techniques are advantageous over surgical tracheostomy (ST), and if one PT technique is superior to the others.


          Computerized databases (1966 to 2013) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting complications as predefined endpoints and comparing PT and ST and among the different PT techniques in mechanically ventilated adult critically ill patients. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and I 2 values were estimated.


          Fourteen RCTs tested PT techniques versus ST in 973 patients. PT techniques were performed faster (MD, −13.06 minutes (95% CI, −19.37 to −6.76 ( P <0.0001)); I 2 = 97% ( P <0.00001)) and reduced odds for stoma inflammation (OR, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.76 ( P = 0.006)); I 2 = 2% ( P = 0.36)), and infection (OR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.41 ( P <0.00001)); I 2 = 0% ( P = 0.54)), but increased odds for procedural technical difficulties (OR, 4.58 (95% CI, 2.21 to 9.47 ( P <0.0001)); I 2 = 0% ( P = 0.63)). PT techniques reduced odds for postprocedural major bleeding (OR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.97 ( P = 0.04)); I 2 = 0% ( P = 0.69)), but not when a single RCT using translaryngeal tracheostomy was excluded (OR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.63 ( P = 0.30)); I 2 = 0% ( P = 0.89)). Eight RCTs compared different PT techniques in 700 patients. Multiple (MDT) and single step (SSDT) dilatator techniques are associated with the lowest odds for difficult dilatation or cannula insertion (OR, 0.30 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.80 ( P = 0.02)); I 2 = 56% ( P = 0.03)) and major intraprocedural bleeding (OR, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.85 ( P = 0.02)); I 2 = 0% ( P = 0.72)), compared to the guide wire dilatation forceps technique.


          In critically ill adult patients, PT techniques can be performed faster and reduce stoma inflammation and infection but are associated with increased technical difficulties when compared to ST. Among PT techniques, MDT and SSDT were associated with the lowest intraprocedural risks and seem to be preferable.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0544-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.

          J J Deeks (2001)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The problem of appraising qualitative research

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy versus surgical tracheostomy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Introduction Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. Results Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. Conclusion PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

                Author and article information

                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                19 December 2014
                19 December 2014
                : 18
                : 6
                : 544
                [ ]Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany
                [ ]Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 8, 16132 Geneva, Italy
                © Putensen et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                : 10 February 2014
                : 11 September 2014
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma


                Comment on this article