Right now the world is scrutinizing every cohort and every outcome for COVID-19 patients, particularly the most critically ill who are receiving mechanical ventilation. The numbers that have been published are all over the place, and some of them -such as very high mortalityare causing panic. Two major issues are at play in these epidemiological studies. The first is when to intubate, and assessment of the rates of intubation and mechanical ventilation for hospitalized patients in cohorts from across the world. The second is the reported mortality for patients who receive mechanical ventilation. Presentation and interpretation of the data for both of these issues is not straightforward, and never has been. However, there are ways we can improve assessment of these cohort studies.
The decision to ventilate"He claimed that the Americans had put their patients in the respirators far too early -certainly they would not have been ventilated in Copenhagen. It's no wonder they survived, he claimed, because they didn't need treatment in the first place (1)." That is not a quote from 2020, but is from Dr. Henry Lassen in 1952. He and his team were dealing with an overwhelming polio epidemic and a high rate of respiratory failure among his patients and he was scrutinizing data from California. It turns out that the same debate we are now having regarding early versus late(r) use of mechanical ventilation and when patients need to receive mechanical ventilation has been going on since the birth of intensive care seventy years ago (2).
Conscientious writers and editors have always insisted on describing patients as having"received" mechanical ventilation, rather than having a "need" for mechanical ventilation because we have never fully agreed on who is in need. What may have seemed like quibbling