• C A Barba, P B Angood, D R Kauder, B Latenser, K Martin, M D McGonigal, G R Phillips, M F Rotondo, and C W Schwab.
• Division of Traumatology and Surgical Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, USA.
• Surgery. 1995 Nov 1; 118 (5): 879-83.

BackgroundWe wanted to assess the efficiency of instituting a modified technique of percutaneous tracheostomy (PET) with bronchoscopic guidance.MethodsDuring a 10-month period 48 consecutive trauma patients requiring tracheostomy were divided between a standard tracheostomy control group (ST) and a PET group. All patients were followed prospectively. The hospital charges were reviewed retrospectively.ResultsAge, gender, body habitus, and principal diagnosis were similar in the 21 ST patients and the 27 PET patients. All STs and 15 of the PETs were performed in the operating room (OR), and the 12 remaining PETs were done in the intensive care unit (ICU). Four patients in the ST group and six in the PET group died. One of these deaths occurred in a patient in the PET group with severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. Procedure time was shorter for PET (16 versus 45 minutes, p < 0.0001). Junior residents performed more PETs than STs (33% versus 10%), and PET was considered "easier" to perform than ST (81% versus 47%). Hospital charges for PET in the ICU were $3400 less per patient compared with ST or PET in the OR.ConclusionsPET was performed easily and safely in the OR and at the ICU bedside. PET required one-third the time of ST. Bronchoscopic supervision of PET may have contributed to the small number of complications and the educational experience of junior residents. PET in the ICU can reduce hospital charges significantly and avoids transport of patients to the OR. PET is as safe as ST and should be considered the procedure of choice for an ICU patient requiring an elective tracheostomy.

12 keywords...

hide…