ArticleScientific reports2025
The COVIDTrach prospective cohort study on outcomes in 1982 tracheostomised COVID-19 patients during the first and second UK pandemic waves.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and mortality predictors after tracheostomy in intensive care unit patients with infectious diseases: A 5-year retrospective cohort study from Brazil.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for Care and weaning procedures in tracheostomized ICU patients after invasive mechanical ventilation: a joint statement by the Intensive Care Physiotherapy Society (SKR) and the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF).Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
COVIDTrach is a UK-wide, prospective cohort study evaluating tracheostomised COVID-19 patient outcomes and operator disease transmission. Early in the pandemic controversy surrounded optimal timing of tracheostomy insertion, however meta-analyses have since addressed this uncertainty. We report on our cohort's data and outcomes to help inform the management of this disease and compare our findings to the literature. Our inclusion criteria were COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 18 undergoing tracheostomy following invasive ventilation. We recorded relevant characteristics, clinical parameters, intra-operative details and outcome data. Predictors for mortality and time to ventilatory wean were determined. Among 1982 patients, there was a 21% post-tracheostomy mortality and median intubation to tracheostomy time of 15 days (IQR 11-21). The median time to successful ventilatory wean post-tracheostomy was 12 days (IQR 7-20). Advancing age, greater FiO2 and PEEP requirements and inotrope or anticoagulant use were associated with increased mortality (p < 0.05) and time to wean success (p < 0.01). Higher CRP predicted increased mortality (p < 0.05), while NIV use and extended pre-tracheostomy ventilation predicted prolonged wean time (p < 0.01). The death risk for tracheostomy performed ≤ 7 or ≥ 14 days of ventilation was equivocal (OR 1.01, 95% CI [0.37-2.72]) but lower between 8 and 14 days (OR = 0.64, 95% CI [0.47-0.86]) (p = 0.01). Eight operators tested positive within two weeks of performing a tracheostomy. Our mortality rates were similar to cohort studies but lower than early versus late tracheostomy designs. In contrast to the literature, we found reduced mortality when tracheostomy was performed 8-14 days post-intubation, with more favourable wean time and wean and decannulation rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.