Introduction. Tracheostomy can help weaning in long-term ventilated patients, reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay, and decreasing complications from prolonged tracheal intubation. In traumatic brain injury (TBI), ideal timing for tracheostomy is still debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of timing (early vs. late) of tracheostomy on mortality and incidence of VAP in traumatic brain-injured patients. Methods. This study was conducted in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We performed a search in PubMed, using an association between heading terms: early, tracheostomy, TBI, prognosis, recovery, impact, mortality, morbidity, and brain trauma OR brain injury. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of eligible studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Comparative analyses were made among Early Tracheostomy (ET) and late tracheostomy (LT) groups. Our primary outcome was the odds ratio of mortality and incidence of VAP between the ET and LT groups in acute brain injury patients. Secondary outcomes included the standardized mean difference (MD) of the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Results. We included two randomized controlled trials, three observational trials, one cross-sectional study, and three retrospective cohort studies. The total number of participants in the ET group was 2509, while in the LT group it was 2597. Early tracheostomy reduced risk for incidence of pneumonia, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, but not mortality. Conclusions. In TBI patients, early tracheostomy compared with late tracheostomy might reduce risk for VAP, ICU and hospital LOS, and duration of mechanical ventilation, but increase the risk of mortality.

Background: The ideal timing for tracheostomy in critically ill patients is still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether early tracheostomy improves clinical outcomes compared to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the risk of clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent early (within 7–10 days of intubation) versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2023. The primary outcome evaluated was mortality, while secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. No language restriction was applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing early to late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in critically ill patients that reported on mortality. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs, and evidence certainty was assessed via the GRADE approach. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 19 RCTs, covering 3586 critically ill patients. Early tracheostomy modestly decreased mortality compared to the control (RR −0.1511 [95% CI: −0.2951 to −0.0070], p = 0.0398). It also reduced ICU length of stay (SMD −0.6237 [95% CI: −0.9526 to −0.2948], p = 0.0002) and the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to late tracheostomy (SMD −0.3887 [95% CI: −0.7726 to −0.0048], p = 0.0472). However, early tracheostomy did not significantly reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to prolonged intubation (SMD −0.1192 [95% CI: −0.2986 to 0.0601], p = 0.1927) or affect VAP incidence (RR −0.0986 [95% CI: −0.2272 to 0.0299], p = 0.1327). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for each outcome indicated that additional trials are needed for conclusive evidence. Conclusions: Early tracheostomy appears to offer some benefits across all considered clinical outcomes when compared to late tracheostomy and prolonged intubation.

Background: Tracheostomy can be performed safely in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, little is known about the optimal timing, effects on outcome, and complications. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study. This study included 153 tracheostomized COVID-19 patients from 11 intensive care units (ICUs). The primary endpoint was the median time to tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Secondary endpoints were survival rate, length of ICU stay, and post-tracheostomy complications, stratified by tracheostomy timing (early versus late) and technique (surgical versus percutaneous). Results: The median time to tracheostomy was 15 (1–64) days. There was no significant difference in survival between critically ill COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy before versus after day 15, nor between surgical and percutaneous techniques. ICU length of stay was shorter with early compared to late tracheostomy (p < 0.001) and percutaneous compared to surgical tracheostomy (p = 0.050). The rate of lower respiratory tract infections was higher with surgical versus percutaneous technique (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, neither early nor percutaneous tracheostomy improved outcomes, but did shorten ICU stay. Infectious complications were less frequent with percutaneous than surgical tracheostomy.

Background: Many healthcare systems have been unable to deal with Covid-19 without influencing non-Covid-19 patients with pre-existing conditions, risking a paralysis in the medium term. This study explores the effects of organizational flexibility on hospital efficiency in terms of the capacity to deliver healthcare services for both Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients. Method: Focusing on Italian health system, a two-step strategy is adopted. First, Data Envelope Analysis is used to assess the capacity of hospitals to address the needs of Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients relying on internal resource flexibility. Second, two panel regressions are performed to assess external organizational flexibility, with the involvement in demand management of external operators in the health-care service, examining the impact on efficiency in hospital capacity management. Results: The overall response of the hospitals in the study was not fully effective in balancing the needs of the two categories of patients (the efficiency score is 0.87 and 0.58, respectively, for Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients), though responses improved over time. Furthermore, among the measures providing complementary services in the community, home hospitalization and territorial medicine were found to be positively associated with hospital efficiency (0.1290, p < 0.05 and 0.2985, p < 0.01, respectively, for non-Covid-19 and Covid-19 patients; 0.0026, p < 0.05 and 0.0069, p < 0.01, respectively, for non-Covid-19 and Covid-19). In contrast, hospital networks are negatively related to efficiency in Covid-19 patients (-0.1037, p < 0.05), while the relationship is not significant in non-Covid-19 patients. Conclusions: Managing the needs of Covid-19 patients while also caring for other patients requires a response from the entire healthcare system. Our findings could have two important implications for effectively managing health-care demand during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. First, as a result of a naturally progressive learning process, the resource balance between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients improves over time. Second, it appears that demand management to control the flow of patients necessitates targeted interventions that combine agile structures with decentralization. Finally, untested integration models risk slowing down the response, giving rise to significant costs without producing effective results.

Background: In recent years, videolaryngoscopy has increasingly been utilized as an alternative to fiberoptic bronchoscopy in awake intubation. Nonetheless, it remains uncertain whether videolaryngoscopy represents a viable substitute for fiberoptic bronchoscopy. We conducted this systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare videolaryngoscopy and fiberoptic bronchoscopy for awake intubation. Methods: We systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing videolaryngoscopy and fiberoptic bronchoscopy for awake intubation. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE were systematically queried through August 2023. Our primary outcome measure was the duration of intubation. Secondary outcomes encompassed the rate of successful intubation on the initial attempt, failed intubation, patient-reported satisfaction, and any complications or adverse events potentially stemming from the intubation procedure. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs was employed to evaluate all studies for evidence of bias. The GRADE approach was utilized to gauge the certainty of the evidence. Results: Eleven trials involving 873 patients were ultimately included in our review for data extraction. Meta-analysis demonstrated that videolaryngoscopy decreased the duration of intubation compared to fiberoptic bronchoscopy (SMD −1.9671 [95% CI: −2.7794 to −1.1548] p < 0.0001), a finding corroborated in subgroup analysis by the type of videolaryngoscope (SMD −2.5027 [95% CI: −4.8733 to −0.1322] p = 0.0385). Additionally, videolaryngoscopy marginally lowered the risk of experiencing a saturation below 90% during the procedure (RR −0.7040 [95% CI: −1.4038 to −0.0043] p = 0.0486). No statistically significant disparities were observed between the two techniques in terms of failed intubation, initial successful intubation attempt, or sore throat/hoarseness. With regard to patient-reported satisfaction, a pooled analysis was precluded due to the variability in evaluation methods employed across the trials to assess this outcome. Lastly, trial sequential analysis (TSA) conducted for intubation time (primary outcome) affirmed the conclusiveness of this evidence; TSA performed for secondary outcomes failed to yield conclusive evidence, indicating the necessity for further trials. Conclusions: Videolaryngoscopy for awake tracheal intubation diminishes intubation time and the risk of experiencing a saturation below 90% compared to fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

Background: The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches. Methods: We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Results: A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs. Conclusions: The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.