Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40596360›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The COVIDTrach prospective cohort study on outcomes in 1982 tracheostomised COVID-19 patients during the first and second UK pandemic waves.

Matthew Haywood, Gareth Ambler, Ciara Walker, Asit Arora, Tony Jacob, Anne G M Schilder, Nick Hamilton, COVIDTrach Collaborators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matthew HaywoodRoyal National Ear Nose and Throat and Eastman Dental Hospitals, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. matthewhaywood0@gmail.com.
Gareth AmblerDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Ciara WalkerRoyal National Ear Nose and Throat and Eastman Dental Hospitals, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Asit AroraGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Tony JacobUniversity Hospital Lewisham, London, UK.
Anne G M SchilderRoyal National Ear Nose and Throat and Eastman Dental Hospitals, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nick HamiltonRoyal National Ear Nose and Throat and Eastman Dental Hospitals, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. nick.hamilton@ucl.ac.uk.
COVIDTrach Collaborators

Funding

NIHR Clinical Research Network North West London IRAS 258019Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19TracheostomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeUnited KingdomVentilator WeaningCohort studiesCOVID-19IntubationNoninvasive ventilationPandemicProspective studiesTracheostomyVentilator weaning

Identifiers

PMID40596360
PMCPMC12217071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.