ObjectivesWhile there is an extensive body of literature surrounding the decision to insert, and methods for inserting, a tracheostomy, the optimal management of tracheostomies within the intensive care unit (ICU) from after insertion until ICU discharge is not well understood. The objective was to identify and map the key concepts relating to, and identify research priorities for, postinsertion management of adult patients with tracheostomies in the ICU.DesignScoping review of the literature.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception to 3 October 2019. Additional sources were searched for published and unpublished literature.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies of any methodology that addressed the a priori key questions relating to tracheostomy management in the ICU. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication.Data extraction and synthesisTitles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in full by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Data were extracted for included studies, and results mapped along the prespecified research questions.Results6132 articles were screened, and 102 articles were included for detailed analysis. Protocolised weaning was found to be successful in liberating patients from the ventilator in several cohort studies. Observational studies showed that strategies that use T-pieces and high-flow oxygen delivery improve weaning success. Several lines of evidence, including one clinical trial, support early cuff deflation as a safe and effective strategy as it results in a reduced time to wean, shorter ICU stays and fewer complications. Early tracheostomy downsizing and/or switching to cuffless tubes was found to be of benefit in one study. A substantial body of evidence supports the use of speaking valves to facilitate communication. While this does not influence time to wean or incidence of complications, it is associated with a major benefit in patient satisfaction and experience. Use of care bundles and multidisciplinary team approaches have been associated with reduced complications and improved outcomes in several observational studies.ConclusionsThe limited body of evidence supports use of weaning protocols, early cuff deflation, use of speaking valves and multidisciplinary approaches. Clinical trials examining post-tracheostomy management strategies in ICUs are a priority.

Splanchnic ischemia (intramucosal pH, <7.3) occurs commonly in isolated neurotrauma, with a statistically nonsignificant trend toward development of mucosal ischemia with decreased cerebral perfusion.

The aim of this study was to review and describe indications for intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) use and identify the impact these have on outcomes at an Australian cardiothoracic tertiary referral hospital. A secondary aim was comparison of the Australian practice with a large multinational IABP data registry. Patient demographics, IABP indication, IABP complication rate and mortality in 662 patients treated with IABP at The Prince Charles Hospital (TPCH), Brisbane, between January 1994 and December 2004 inclusive were compared with The Benchmark Counterpulsation Outcomes Registry. Data were collected between 1994 and 2000 by retrospective patient record review and prospectively using the Benchmark database from 2001 to 2004. Statistical analysis was undertaken usingSAS (v8.2) software. The mean age of patients managed with IABP at TPCH (71.6% male) was 63.4 years (SD 12.4). In-hospital mortality rate was 22% and the complication rate was 10.3%. TPCH indications for IABP were: weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (34.2%); cardiogenic shock (24.4%); preoperative support (13%); catheter laboratory support (10.6%); refractory ventricular failure (7.3%); ischaemia related to intractable ventricular arrhythmias (4.5%); unstable refractory angina (4%); mechanical complications due to acute myocardial infarction (1.2%) and other (0.4%) (0.4% not reported). In comparison to Benchmark, IABP at TPCH demonstrated a prejudice toward intraoperative use (34.2% versus 16.6%; P= <0.0001) and an aversion to catheter laboratory support (10.6% versus 19%; P= <0.0001). TPCH and Benchmark IABP outcomes demonstrated comparable mortality (22% versus 20.8%; P=ns) but increased TPCH complications (10.3% vs. 6.2%; P= <0.0001) owing to a 2% difference in observed insertion site bleeding.