Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

COVID-19 controversy: when to intubate?

Alyn H Morice
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00185-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00185-2021
Alyn H Morice
Dept of Medicine, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alyn H Morice
  • For correspondence: a.h.morice@hull.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Opinions differ as to when to escalate ventilatory support to intubation and mechanical ventilation https://bit.ly/3wgmS2B

Today we publish correspondence [1, 2] concerning a heated debate on when to institute mechanical ventilation in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The decision, of course, rests on the definition of respiratory failure and how to measure it. An almost universal tool is oximetry, which provides us with the percentage of haemoglobin saturated with oxygen in arterial blood. However, this metric is not linearly related to the volume of oxygen released to the tissues for a given cardiac output [3]. I have on my phone the oxyhaemoglobin dissociation curve because it illustrates that a fall in top-end saturation impacts oxygen delivery little, much to the surprise of some colleagues.

The correspondence refers to an article by Voshaar et al. [4], a retrospective analysis of the outcome of conservative management of patients based on clinical criteria rather than “hypoxia” alone. Unfortunately, as with most journals, we have been deluged with retrospective case series of patients who were given snake oil and recovered. In fact, two thirds of patients admitted to the intensive therapy unit survive [5] so it becomes easy to convince oneself that success is due to treatment. As the great pharmacologist Sir John Gaddum said, “patients may recover in spite of drugs or because of them”.

What makes the study by Voshaar et al. [4] different from this mass of observational reports? They are advocating noninvasive measures unless driven by clinical necessity. That is, do less, rather than more. It is worthy of debate because evidence-based medicine cannot come to our rescue, if it ever does.

The article was expeditiously published (after rapid review) but then we were and are in the grip of a pandemic. ERJ Open Research has recently adopted an Early View format that allows for rapid publication and if we are to contribute, it is surely through dissemination of opinion about vital clinical controversies. Please read the correspondence and make your own mind up.

Voshaar et al. [4] make the common error of attributing the phrase primum non nocere to Hippocrates. Of course, Hippocrates never said this since it is Latin and he was Greek. Appropriately enough, in Epidemics (Book I, Chapter XI) he writes “As to diseases, make a habit of two things – to help, or at least to do no harm.” First, do no harm is, however, the guiding principle of the Hippocratic School and it is as true today as it was (almost exactly) two and a half thousand years ago. As a medical student I was told the story of a man who was admitted to hospital seriously ill. The physician attends daily and the history taken exhaustively. A few simple tests are done. Gradually, the man recovers and is discharged. The patient receives a bill for 200 guineas. He is outraged and exclaims, “but you did nothing!” The physician replies, “The bill for doing nothing is nothing. The bill for knowing to do nothing is 200 guineas.”

The clinical response to the pandemic has been little short of magnificent. My own hospital catchment was, for a couple of weeks, top of the national incidence rate in the UK, a country with amongst the worst mortality rates in Europe. The National Health Service was not overwhelmed and conservative management the rule. We will never know with absolute certainty whether early or delayed intubation is preferable in managing COVID-19. With this uncertainty, it becomes a matter of philosophy rather than science as to how to manage our patients. The role of this journal is to provide the medium for rational discussion and I commend both sets of authors for engaging in this debate.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of Interest: A.H. Morice has nothing to disclose

  • Received March 15, 2021.
  • Accepted March 17, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Windisch W,
    2. Kluge S,
    3. Bachmann M, et al.
    Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00113–2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00113-2021
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Voshaar T,
    2. Stais P,
    3. Köhler D, et al.
    Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00134–2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00113-2021
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Hsia CCW
    . Respiratory function of hemoglobin. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 239–248. doi:10.1056/NEJM199801223380407
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Voshaar T,
    2. Stais P,
    3. Köhler D, et al.
    Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00026–2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00026-2021
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Armstrong RA,
    2. Kane AD,
    3. Kursumovic E, et al.
    Mortality in patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Anaesthesia 2021; 76: 537–548. doi:10.1111/anae.15425
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COVID-19 controversy: when to intubate?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
COVID-19 controversy: when to intubate?
Alyn H Morice
ERJ Open Research Apr 2021, 7 (2) 00185-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00185-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
COVID-19 controversy: when to intubate?
Alyn H Morice
ERJ Open Research Apr 2021, 7 (2) 00185-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00185-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Acute lung injury and critical care
  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Asthma patients’ and physicians’ perspectives of disease burden
  • Important steps towards a big change for lung health
  • The BED-Pro Tool
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society