By using ventilators more sparingly on Covid-19 patients, physicians could reduce the more-than-50% death rate for those put on the machines, according to an analysis published Tuesday in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
The authors argue that physicians need a new playbook for when to use ventilators for Covid-19 patients — a message consistent with new treatment guidelines issued Tuesday by the National Institutes of Health, which advocates a phased approach to breathing support that would defer the use of ventilators if possible.
As the pandemic has flooded hospitals with a disease that physicians had never before seen, health care workers have had to figure out treatment protocols on the fly. Starting this month, a few physicians have voiced concern that some hospitals have been too quick to put Covid-19 patients on mechanical ventilators, that elderly patients in particular may have been harmed more than helped, and that less invasive breathing support, including simple oxygen-delivering nose prongs, might be safer and more effective.
The new analysis, from an international team of physician-researchers, supports what had until now been mainly two hunches: that some of the Covid-19 patients put on ventilators didn’t need to be, and that unusual features of the disease can make mechanical ventilation harmful to the lungs.
“This is one of the first coherent, comprehensive, and reasonably clear discussions of the pathophysiology of Covid-19 in the lungs that I’ve seen,” said palliative care physician Muriel Gillick of Harvard Medical School, who was one of the first to ask if ventilators were harming some Covid-19 patients, especially elderly ones. “There is mounting evidence that lots of patients are tolerating fairly extreme” low levels of oxygen in the blood, suggesting that such hypoxemia should not be equated with the need for a ventilator.
If a Covid-19 patient is clearly struggling to breathe, then invasive ventilation makes sense, wrote Marcus Schultz of Amsterdam University Medical Centers and his colleagues.
But using low levels of blood oxygen (hypoxemia) as a sign that a patient needs mechanical ventilation can lead physicians astray, they argue, because low blood oxygen in a Covid-19 patient is not like low blood oxygen in other patients with, for instance, other forms of pneumonia or sepsis.
The latter typically gasp for breath and can barely speak, but many Covid-19 patients with oxygen levels in the 80s (the high 90s are normal) and even lower are able to speak full sentences without getting winded and in general show no other signs of respiratory distress, as their hypoxemia would predict.
“In our personal experience, hypoxemia … is often remarkably well tolerated by Covid-19 patients,” the researchers wrote, in particular by those under 60. “The trigger for intubation should, within certain limits, probably not be based on hypoxemia but more on respiratory distress and fatigue.”
Absent clear distress, they say, blood oxygen levels of coronavirus patients don’t need to be raised above 88%, a much lower goal than in other causes of pneumonia.
Without effective drugs, surviving severe Covid-19 depends on supportive care, including breathing support where necessary. But recommendations for that care are largely based on guidelines for other viral pneumonias and sepsis. That explains the second reason ventilators aren’t helping more patients: Covid-19 affects the lungs differently than other causes of severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, the researchers point out, confirming what physicians around the world are starting to realize.
For one thing, the thick mucus-like coating on the lungs developed by many Covid-19 patients impedes the lungs from taking up the delivered oxygen.
For another, unlike in other pneumonias the areas of lung damage in Covid-19 can sit right next to healthy tissue, which is elastic. Forcing oxygen-enriched air (in some cases, 100% oxygen) into elastic tissue at high pressure and in large volumes can cause leaks, pulmonary edema (swelling), and inflammation, among other damage, contributing to “ventilator-induced injury and increased mortality” in Covid-19, the researchers wrote.
“Invasive ventilation can be lifesaving, but can also damage the lung,” Schultz told STAT.
It’s important to highlight “aspects of Covid-19 that differ from other diseases that require respiratory support,” said Phil Rosenthal of the University of California, San Francisco, editor of the journal. Patients with Covid-19 pneumonia are often less breathless “compared to other patients with similar [blood oxygen] levels,” he said, adding that this difference “may allow physicians to avoid intubation/ventilator support in some patients.”
There is a growing recognition that some Covid-19 patients, even those with severe disease as shown by the extent of lung infection, can be safely treated with simple nose prongs or face masks that deliver oxygen.The latter include CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) masks used for sleep apnea, or BiPAP (bi-phasic positive airway pressure) masks used for congestive heart failure and other serious conditions. CPAP can also be delivered via hoods or helmets, reducing the risk that patients will expel large quantities of virus into the air and endanger health care workers.
Earlier this month, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York developed a protocol to repurpose sleep apnea machines for Covid-19 patients, while in Rhode Island, the Department of Public Health, University of Rhode Island, and others are collecting the devices for hospitals to use instead of ventilators where possible.
“We use CPAP a lot, and it works well, especially in combination with having patients lie prone,” Schultz said.
The Covid-19 treatment guidelines released by the NIH do not specifically address what criteria physicians should use for putting patients on a ventilator. But in a recognition of the damage that the ventilators can do, they recommend a phased approach to breathing support: oxygen delivered by simple nose prongs, escalating if necessary to one of the positive-pressure devices, and intubation only if the patient’s respiratory status deteriorates. If mechanical ventilation becomes necessary, the NIH said, it should be used to deliver only low volumes of oxygen, reflecting the risk of damaging healthy lung tissue.
“Patients can tolerate low oxygen levels in the blood often remarkably well,” Schultz said. “They do not need to be intubated [unless levels are] getting too extremely low for too long.” Some patients “were asked to get off their cell phone because they had to be intubated,” he added. “That is not necessary, and we frequently decided not to intubate.”
This story has been updated with additional comments from outside experts.
About the Author Reprints
Why were no pulmonologists or intensivists consulted? Waiting for fatigue prior to intubating will necessitate an emergent intubation!!! Unfortunately, the pulmonary damage from Covid 19 requires high inspiratory pressures to deliver adequate 02 to the alveoli. Alveolar/arterial differences require high FiO2. Finally, hypoxemia in the elderly will cause cardiac and renal deterioration.
A 5 minute google search revealed the majority of the authors of the linked analysis ARE senior intensivists…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjen_Dondorp
https://www.linkedin.com/in/diptesharyal/?originalSubdomain=np
https://www.amc.nl/web/research-75/person-1/prof.-md-phd-m.j.-schultz.htm
If you had bothered to read their conclusion you would have found this which answers your concerns:
“The presence of only hypoxemia should within certain limits not trigger intubation because hypoxemia is often remarkably well tolerated. Patients with fatigue and at risk for exhaustion because of respiratory distress do require invasive ventilation. In these patients, lung protective ventilation is essential, for which limiting the PEEP level on the ventilator may be important. This might reduce the currently very high case fatality rate of more than 50% in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients…Early experience from Amsterdam is that following this guidance case fatality in mechanically ventilated patients is less than 50% (Schultz, personal communication).”
Three of the study authors are senior and very experienced intensivists.
Exactly per findings in Italy – that also discoverd two types of Covid manifestions (Type L and Type H) : https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928807?nlid=135063_5404&src=wnl_dne_200417_mscpedit&uac=369741FT&impID=2349767&faf=1
Constant changes in treatments and patient care are to expected for this new powerful virus.
Where can the ” updated with additional comments from outside experts” information be found on the internet? Thanks!
I am retired now but years ago the decision to intubate was based more on patients’ ability to ventilate the lungs which is measured by a rising PaCO2 and respiratory acidosis. Patients with low Oxygen concentration measured by low PaO2 were treated with increased FiO2 with additional O2 by various mouth and nose masks/cannula including increased FiO2 by non rebreathing mask or CPAP . It seems the “new” recommendation is the same as the old. Just add more Oxygen if low O2 saturation is the only problem.
Yes funny how there was no backlash against ICU’s nationwide placing patients on ventilators when they could mechanically breathe well, had high compliance and they were responding to oxygen rather than pressure. Where was the criticism about a lack of randomised clinical trials for this protocol then?
Clear-Vu Medical has taken Northwell Health’s design (https://feinstein.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/northwell-converts-bipap-machines-into-ventilators-for-hospitalized-covid-19-patients-uses-3d-printed-adapter) into mass production and can deliver T-Adapters for BIPAP machines at the rate of 2,000+ units/day for less than $10/each!
I fail to understand how non-invasive face masks for COVID-19 can possibly be recommended given 1) the decreased risk of viral spread they represent vs. face masks and 2) the CLEAR evidence of better outcomes using oxygen hoods in non COVID-19 ARDS patients from the two University of Chicago studies on the matter:
https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/patient-care-articles/helmet-based-ventilation-is-superior-to-face-mask-for-patients-with-respiratory-distress
The short term study had to be ended early because the ethics team would not support putting more patients at increased risk through continued use of facial masks.
The longer term follow up therapy makes for frankly depressing reading for those being treated with face masks as a front line therapy. The median institution free day for surviving patients in the year following treatment was ZERO vs 268.5 days for those using the oxygen hoods.
How can ICU physicians and their employers continue to use these devices as the standard of care when an ethics panel thought it was unethical to continue a clinical trial with these devices as the standard of care?
How much more evidence do you need that this is NOT the optimal solution?
How strong is the grip of Phillips, Resmed and Fisher & Paykel on the hospital market when devices that cost hundreds of dollars and deliver DEMONSTRABLY WORSE outcomes continue to be used by the thousands when devices that cost US$162 each are available with superior results based on a robust randomised clinical trial?
Sorry first line should read:
“I fail to understand how non-invasive face masks for COVID-19 can possibly be recommended when oxygen hoods are available given 1) the decreased risk of viral spread they represent…”
There is a easy way to increase oxygen flow in the blood as well at the same time enhancing the immune system. If you are interested you can contact me via my e mail
This will have been the real value of flattening or moving the curve – not so authorities can pile up hospital beds and ventilators for people to die on; rather, so that doctors and medical science can learn how to treat this thing – through smart and open-minded experimentation. I sure hope findings like these can make their way through to front-line treatment personnel.
Agreed. Make it more manageable to treat. It’s still going to have lifelong impacts, but at least the patient has survived.
Sorry for few typos, it’s iPhones not my Dyslexia.
This needs to be sent out to all the hospitals, ASAP!
Interesting artical. It seems that the oxygen in the blood stream must be optimized, as well as the immune system must be strengthened to fight the virus. There is a fairly simple way to do it. If I can substantiate that scientifically would you be interested.
NO we would NOT! Now go away troll.
Ventilators induce damage by pumping air under the pressure, in this case trying to open almost collapsed alveoli ( as the result of viral inflammation and activation of humoral immunity-which as kill virus but endothelial lining as well, that further activate cytokines, IL-6, and further anti activates cellular immune response, other transcription factors, the endothelial debris accumulate in the alveoli and the interstitial liquid from the gets in, finally the alveoli shrinks). When you pump the air under the high pressure. To open up this alveoli, you actually pump all the air into healthy alveoli, which causes stretching and ballooning of the healthy- and damaging. This is how the patient additionally loose more of alveoli.