We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Tracheostomy for infants requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: 10 years' experience.
Pediatrics 2013 May
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in care of critically ill neonates, extended mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy are sometimes required. Few studies focus on complications and clinical outcomes. Our aim was to provide long-term outcomes for a cohort of infants who required tracheostomy.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 165 infants born between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who required tracheostomy and ventilator support. Children with complex congenital heart disease were excluded.
RESULTS: Median gestational age was 27 weeks (range 22-43), and birth weight was 820 g (range 360-4860). The number of male (53.9%) and female (46.1%) infants was similar (P = .312). Infants were divided into 2 groups based on birth weight ≤1000 g (A) and >1000 g (B). Group A: 87 (57.6%) infants; group B 64 (42.4%). Overall tracheostomy rate was 6.9% (87/1345) for group A versus 0.9% (64/6818) for B (P <.001). Group A had a longer time from intubation to positive pressure ventilation independence, 505 days (range 62-1287) vs 372 days (range 15-1270; P = .011). Infants who had >1 reason for tracheostomy comprised 78.8% of the sample; 69.1% of infants were discharged on ventilators. Birth weight did not affect time from tracheostomy to decannulation (P = .323). More group A infants were decannulated (P = .023). laryngotracheal reconstruction rate was 35.8%. Five-year survival was 89%. Group B had higher mortality (P = .033). 64.2% of infants had developmental delays; 74.2% had ≥2 comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy rates were higher for extremely low birth weight infants than previously reported rates for all infants. Decannulation rates and laryngotracheal reconstruction rates were consistent with previous studies. Survival rates were high, but developmental delay and comorbidities were frequent.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 165 infants born between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who required tracheostomy and ventilator support. Children with complex congenital heart disease were excluded.
RESULTS: Median gestational age was 27 weeks (range 22-43), and birth weight was 820 g (range 360-4860). The number of male (53.9%) and female (46.1%) infants was similar (P = .312). Infants were divided into 2 groups based on birth weight ≤1000 g (A) and >1000 g (B). Group A: 87 (57.6%) infants; group B 64 (42.4%). Overall tracheostomy rate was 6.9% (87/1345) for group A versus 0.9% (64/6818) for B (P <.001). Group A had a longer time from intubation to positive pressure ventilation independence, 505 days (range 62-1287) vs 372 days (range 15-1270; P = .011). Infants who had >1 reason for tracheostomy comprised 78.8% of the sample; 69.1% of infants were discharged on ventilators. Birth weight did not affect time from tracheostomy to decannulation (P = .323). More group A infants were decannulated (P = .023). laryngotracheal reconstruction rate was 35.8%. Five-year survival was 89%. Group B had higher mortality (P = .033). 64.2% of infants had developmental delays; 74.2% had ≥2 comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy rates were higher for extremely low birth weight infants than previously reported rates for all infants. Decannulation rates and laryngotracheal reconstruction rates were consistent with previous studies. Survival rates were high, but developmental delay and comorbidities were frequent.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app