Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global surge in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, some of whom may benefit from tracheostomy. Decisions on if, when, and how to perform tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 have major implications for patients, clinicians, and hospitals. We investigated the tracheostomy protocols and practices that institutions around the world have put into place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data Sources Protocols for tracheostomy in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from individual institutions (n = 59) were obtained from the United States and 25 other countries, including data from several low- and middle-income countries, 23 published or society-endorsed protocols, and 36 institutional protocols. Review Methods The comparative document analysis involved cross-sectional review of institutional protocols and practices. Data sources were analyzed for timing of tracheostomy, contraindications, preoperative testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), surgical technique, and postoperative management. Conclusions Timing of tracheostomy varied from 3 to >21 days, with over 90% of protocols recommending 14 days of intubation prior to tracheostomy. Most protocols advocate delaying tracheostomy until COVID-19 testing was negative. All protocols involved use of N95 or higher PPE. Both open and percutaneous techniques were reported. Timing of tracheostomy changes ranged from 5 to >30 days postoperatively, sometimes contingent on negative COVID-19 test results. Implications for Practice Wide variation exists in tracheostomy protocols, reflecting geographical variation, different resource constraints, and limited data to drive evidence-based care standards. Findings presented herein may provide reference points and a framework for evolving care standards.

IMPORTANCE Because hearing loss is highly prevalent and treatable, determining its association with morbidity has major public health implications for disease prevention and the maintenance of health in adults with hearing loss.OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between the diagnosis of incident hearing loss and medical comorbidities in adults 50 years or older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study using administrative claims data from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members in a geographically diverse US health plan. Adults 50 years or older with claims for services rendered from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, were observed for 2 (n = 154 414), 5 (n = 44 852), and 10 (n = 4728) years. This research was conceptualized and data were analyzed between September 2016 and November 2017.EXPOSURES A claim for incident hearing loss is defined as 2 claims for hearing loss within 2 consecutive years without evidence of hearing device use, excluding claims for sudden hearing loss or hearing loss secondary to medical conditions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESIncident claims for dementia, depression, accidental falls, nonvertebral fractures, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTSAfter cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. In a multivariate-adjusted modified Poisson regression with robust standard errors, relative associations were strongest for dementia (relative risk at 5 years, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.38-1.64) and depression (relative risk at 5 years, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.26-1.58). The absolute risk of all outcomes was greater in persons with hearing loss than in those without hearing loss at all times, with the greatest risk difference observed at 10 years for all outcomes. The 10-year risk attributable to hearing loss was 3.20 per 100 persons (95% CI, 1.76-4.63) for dementia, 3.57 per 100 persons (95% CI, 1.67-5.47) for falls, and 6.88 per 100 persons (95% CI, 4.62-9.14) for depression. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this large observational study using administrative claims data, incident untreated hearing loss was associated with greater incident morbidity than no hearing loss across a range of health conditions. Future studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations and to determine if treatment for hearing loss could reduce the risk of comorbidity.

Objective Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) prompts >2 million adult visits in the United States annually. While disease prevalence and health care utilization are established for children, practice patterns for adults remain unknown. Our objective was to determine national resource utilization for adult ETD. Study Design Cross-sectional study. Setting National database sample. Subjects and Methods The Truven Health MarketScan Databases (2010-2014) analytic cohort included health care encounters of patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of ETD, otitis media with effusion, or tympanic membrane retraction. Visits associated with recent diagnoses of acute upper respiratory infection, head and neck cancer, or radiation therapy were excluded. Acute ETD (<3 months) and chronic ETD (≥3 months) were subgroups. Medication usage was quantified by class. Results ETD was diagnosed for 1,298,987 patients, 11% of which was chronic. Over 92% of patients were seen in outpatient clinics, most often by otolaryngology (57%) for chronic ETD and by general medicine (49%) for acute ETD. Medications were frequently utilized, as 530,146 (53.7%) patients received ≥1 prescription. Top prescriptions for chronic ETD included intranasal corticosteroids (22%), antibiotics (22%), oral corticosteroids (13%), and analgesics (6%). The overall annual cost of prescribed medications associated with visits in which either acute or chronic ETD was diagnosed exceeded $8.5 million for a mean of $80.78 per patient who filled a prescription. Conclusion Adult ETD is frequently treated with several medication classes by a variety of provider types. Understanding the potential adverse effects and cost associated with these practices should be a priority.

No abstract