Since the beginning of COVID 19 pandemic, various guidelines and suggestions have come up for high aerosol generating procedures (AGP) like tracheostomy. Exposure and subsequent acquiring of COVID 19 disease among health care workers (HCW) has been attributed to COVID patient care. It has been a constant struggle to strike a balance between providing optimal patient care and ensuring the safety of HCWs. This has led to revisit and modify hospital environment and surgical steps to protect HCWs while performing AGPs.
The MERS pandemic provided the first clues and directions to deal with the current one. Those previous guidelines formed the basis of performing high AGPs during the COVID 19 pandemic. With time and understanding of the current situation, new recommendations were proposed based on current COVID 19 experience. Tracheostomy being deemed a high AGP, the focus has been on preventing aerosol spread during steps contributing the most to aerosol generation. Apneic tracheostomy with its variations, performing tracheostomy under the coverage of negative pressure drape and the choice of open surgical tracheotomy over percutaneous route have been considered towards achieving this goal. Percutaneous tracheostomy has been considered to generate aerosols at a higher rate than open procedure due to the need for bronchoscopy and multiple tracheal exchanges. [5] Hence we preferred open surgical tracheostomy at our institute.
Prabhakaran et al. utilized negative pressure drapes for tracheostomy. Negative pressure hoods over the surgical field were theoretically expected to achieve a lesser degree of aerosol transmission. [6] However, the actual amount of negative pressure required and the efficacy of the procedure remains unclear. Due to the sheer volume of patients requiring tracheostomy at our setup combined with the need for optimal utilization of already scarce resources, we decided against using them in our surgeries.
We went ahead with apnoiec tracheostomy for our patients. Variations in apneic tracheostomy included performing it under GA with complete muscle relaxant cover, proximal ET tube withdrawal followed by apnea induction prior to tracheotomy with or without progressing ET tube distally to reventilate, [7, 8]or progressing the ET tube upto the carina before tracheotomy. Though each variation has its expected benefits, none is strongly recommended above the other.
We encountered certain practical difficulties with apnea prior to tracheotomy. Most of these patients had severe ARDS and they critically desaturated, requiring a faster tracheostomy. There was a risk of accidental ET cuff damage during bubble test and/or tracheotomy, again leading to desaturation, loss of PEEP and de-recruitment.
The time taken to create a tracheal window was also higher in patients with ossified tracheal cartilage. Inducing apnoea post tracheotomy with carinal intubation circumvented these issues and provided us with the time margin needed to perform the procedure in a calm and collected manner thus avoiding potential complications, while simultaneously keeping the patient safe.
We found that none of our surgeons and the supporting technical team members were infected with COVID 19 during the entire duration we performed tracheostomies. This in itself has been a marker for efficacy of our modified surgical approach and our success in preventing infection among our team members. As the entire world is resorting to unprecedented measures to ensure both patient welfare and surgeon’s safety, we propose the above modifications as a safe cost-effective way in achieving the same while performing tracheostomies.