Skip to main content

Timing of Intubation in Covid-19 ARDS: What “time” really matters?

The Original Article was published on 25 March 2021

To the Editor,

We congratulate Dr. Papoutsi et al. for their study, on the optimal time of intubation in Covid-19 ARDS patients [1]. In their systematic meta-analysis they found that outcomes are not affected from the intubation time (within 24-h of ICU admission or later).

We agree with the authors that “early intubation”, relying solely on the time spent in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) before intubation, is a rather arbitrary definition and may be misleading. Many important data are lost in this type of analysis, which may affect outcomes. Firstly, ARDS severity in patients receiving early vs late intubation is not reported. Were patients in the two groups of different severity? The authors acknowledge this limitation, but disease severity (as defined by the oxygenation impairment, lung infiltration extent, APACHE II score) and patient heterogeneity, arising from differences in clinical practices, impacts outcomes. Probably, these criteria may be more meaningful than just “time”.

Secondly, ICU admission criteria vary according to resource availability and institution protocols. Thus, hospitalization of non-intubated patients in ICUs is not widely applicable. A substantial proportion of information regarding the optimal intubation time is carried in patients intubated in the wards, and this group has not been included in the analysis. Probably, the time the patients have spent under “distress” during hospitalization, should not be neglected. Therefore, other variables, besides frank “time”, should be sought to decide when to intubate. In our opinion, the cumulative time with hypoxemia and/or tachypnea are meaningful data to look at. In other words, is Patient-Self Inflicted Lung Injury a matter to care for in Covid-19 ARDS, or should we tolerate hypoxemia and tachypnea to minimize complications from sedation and mechanical ventilation [2, 3]? It would be very informative to know whether early intubation preserves respiratory mechanics.

Optimal intubation time is an issue of great importance, either performed in the ICU or elsewhere, and should be investigated in future, carefully-designed trials. “Silent hypoxia” was one of the initial observations in Covid-19 pathophysiology, present despite extensive pulmonary infiltrates and severe hypoxemia [4]; prone position has been widely adopted in sedated and non-sedated patients, altering oxygenation status and therefore intubation time [5].

The decision to intubate may be an “art of medicine”, yet, in times of such crisis, when doctors from different fields and with different skills, or even young doctors without specialties, are encountered in the decision making, formal thresholds and sound protocols should be introduced.

Authors’ reply

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

We thank Drs Tsolaki and Zakynthinos for their interest in our work [1] and insightful points.

We agree with our colleagues that defining “early” intubation solely based on a time threshold spent in the intensive care unit (ICU) might be arbitrary. We accordingly explored an alternate definition of “early” intubation, using as criterion a prior trial of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV). This sensitivity analysis aimed to address the notion that patients maintained in spontaneous breathing (HFNC) or receiving partial ventilatory assistance (NIV) may experience high respiratory drive leading to high tidal volume and transpulmonary pressure, which may in turn contribute to development of patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) [3]. That being said, one should keep in mind that scientific evidence regarding the clinical relevance of P-SILI in humans may not yet be compelling enough to justify early intubation [6].

Also, our colleagues reasonably pointed out that criteria for ICU admission may vary depending on institution protocols and availability of resources. Indeed, availability of resources may substantially influence not only overall outcomes [7] but also the threshold of ICU admission [8]. We attempted to address this issue by performing a subgroup analysis of reports from regions with low disease burden (namely, Germany, Korea and Greece) and we again found that all-cause mortality remained comparable between the two (“early” versus “late” intubation) groups.

Overall, “early” intubation represents a spectrum of definitions. Our meta-analysis explored two (one with and one without a time threshold) and revealed no benefit of early intubation. Therefore, we attempted to convey the message that following a stepwise approach to intubation, by offering the patient a trial of HFNC or NIV, seems reasonable based on the current evidence. Practicing medicine is a cost–benefit balance and it seems that preemptive intubation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1.

    Papoutsi E, Giannakoulis VG, Xourgia E, Routsi C, Kotanidou A, Siempos II. Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03540-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Caution about early intubation and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00692-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cruces P, Retamal J, Hurtado DE, Erranz B, Iturrieta P, González C, Díaz F. A physiological approach to understand the role of respiratory effort in the progression of lung injury in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):494. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03197-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(3):356–60. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, Dalla Corte F, De Robertis E, Favarato M, Forastieri A, Forlini C, Girardis M, Grieco DL, Mirabella L, Noseda V, Previtali P, Protti A, Rona R, Tardini F, Tonetti T, Zannoni F, Antonelli M, Foti G, Ranieri M, Pesenti A, Fumagalli R, Grasselli G, PRONA-COVID Group. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tobin MJ, Jubran A, Laghi F. P-SILI as justification for intubation in COVID-19: readers as arbiters. P-SILI as justification for intubation in COVID-19: readers as arbiters. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Siempos II, Xourgia E, Ntaidou TK, Zervakis D, Magira EE, Kotanidou A, Routsi C, Zakynthinos SG. Effect of early vs. delayed or no intubation on clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19: an observational study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:614152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wunsch H. Mechanical ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the current epidemiology. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(1):1–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors equally contributed to the concept of the manuscript based on observations on the timing of intubation of COVID-19 ARDS patients. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasiliki Tsolaki.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsolaki, V., Zakynthinos, G.E. Timing of Intubation in Covid-19 ARDS: What “time” really matters?. Crit Care 25, 173 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03598-2

Download citation