They're pretty fucking bad. Last study I read was around 80% deathrate (this is almost twice normal) with
some ER doctors explicit that you should not ventilate covid patients because it causes their alveoli to explode.
This terrible mortality percentage may partly be because
being intubated is reported as agonizingly painful even in sedated individuals.
Your first two statements are persistent myths of COVID care from early 2020. Mechanical ventilation is the point of last resort, and so "80% deathrate" is not a reasonable assessment of the utility of intubation. You can frame electrical defibrillation in the same way; the "deathrate" of patients who receive defibrillation after the first 3 minutes of collapse is
51%.
What percentage would have survived without defibrillation? Approximately 0%. Intubation has more leeway, at least in the sense that doctors can't be certain which cases will become terminal. At the same time, of that 20%
success rate you are referring to, I would attribute a vast majority (18%+) to intubation saving people what would otherwise simply die without it. Could this rate of success be increased? Yes, but that does not mean that the act of mechanical ventilation itself is causing the problem. In fact, many health systems did identify early problem of low success rate of mechanical ventilation care, and they used divergent tactics with intubated patients to try to solve it.
For this reason, studies on this subject have dramatic ranges in mortality, with a lot of that mortality having to do with the complex disease state advanced COVID present, and the difficulties of medical teams in addressing it. Even in the 2020 period, many health systems showed extremely
high variance in outcomes, such as that one flipping the "80% deathrate" on its head. Though it's hard to distinguish a low mortality rate on vents from a health system that is over-intubating patients, there's really not much cause for such extreme pessimism.
The article you linked in particular was a major source of this misinformation in early 2020, because the headline and a few quotes imply something the details and source material don't, and skimming may confuse readers as to what is even being said. Here are some choice quotes from the article itself that re-iterate my points so far:
Doctors like Kyle-Sidell (who TIME could not reach for comment) argue these numbers are so high because physicians are ventilating patients as though they have a condition called acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), when they in fact have a different type of lung damage that may not respond well to mechanical ventilation.
Note that this does not actually claim the vents are causing the problem, only that the problem was "misdiagnosed" and vents were not sufficient to correct the problem. His concerns are purely with optimization of care, and mostly relies on using intubation, simply in a different way. That's right: Doc Alveoli Explodes is saying that he wants people
on vents. You can verify this yourself by simply watching the video, it's only six minutes.
His wanton speculation that the ventilation and high PEEP was causing the ARDS symptoms in and of itself was both flippant and premature. It's clear at this point that ARDS in COVID patients is entirely present in patients with or without ventilation in the late stages, that pressure is still a component of care, and that you still need at least moderate PEEP to keep these patients alive. This is true even if you add in HFNO, as he has taken to advocating. Dr. Kyle-Sidell was by no means alone in his observations or speculation even in 2020, but he is unique in the since that of the many physicians saying similar things, only he was (almost maliciously) quoted as the vents-make-your-lungs-explode guy, and he continues to be quoted as such- not for anything else he said, frankly. That puts a great deal of responsibility on his head, because you can't just make inflammatory claims like that willy nilly if you are putting the weight of your position and the public trust behind it.
Medical communications is fucking hard. The press will stop at nothing to find a single doctor saying something stupid they can quote to write a dozen hysterical headlines, and the same goes for conspiracy theorists.
Yes, some health systems likely saved fewer patients than they could have by using conventional tactics for treating ARDS. No, it was not every health system. No, this outcome was not obvious or proven from the outset. This is the fallout of a country getting hit by a new, dare I say "novel" disease, which was spreading way too fast in a country that moves way too slow. If you ever want to shout at someone for doctors clinging too tightly to "traditional, guideline treatments," start with the dangers of the feds getting involved first, fear of doing harm second, and ego/stubbornness in a distant, distant third. There are good reasons not to be adventurous in medicine, even if most of them have to do with law enforcement.
Following that thought, some more perspectives from back in 2020:
“You have really sick people, [while] the people who have the best training are in short supply and ventilator management is not simple,” Hill says. If a dedicated lung specialist were available for each patient, he believes, outcomes would probably be better. [...] High ventilator mortality rates in New York City suggest “a health care system failing, and not a ventilator hurting people,” Hill says.
Dr. Ken Lyn-Kew, a pulmonologist at National Jewish Health in Colorado, agrees that there are some differences between classic ARDS and COVID-19, but he emphasizes that there’s a lot of variation among COVID-19 patients he’s treated. He says most still
meet the criteria for an ARDS diagnosis. In his view, coronavirus patients likely have ARDS
plus other issues, but they still have ARDS. [...] “The world is not a dichotomous, black-and-white place, but a lot of people are having trouble with that,” Lyn-Kew says. “We might be able to do better, but in the absence of data on the way to do that, we need to follow our societal guidelines and 25 years of research.”
These were not unreasonable opinions or evaluations at the time, and they are vindicated today.
Now that's out of the way, stress is a very real factor in disease and patient QOL is a priority for this reason. The study you cited is a very small retrospective study and while there is recorded trauma, they relate to the process of being intubated, as in, before the sedation was total*. These patients have presumably recovered since they were intubated, considering the fact they were capable of being interviewed, so they may not be the most conclusive measure on whether or not the stress of intubation
at the time is affecting disease prognosis. An appropriate study would build on this suspicion by requesting data be collected on, or at least collect preexisting data for these four things:
- Clinical outcomes of mechanical ventilation in COVID,
- Timing of sedation,
- Degree of sedation,
- Dosages of sedative (or analgesic combinations)
Anything before such a study is run is still speculation, but I do agree it's a legitimate concern.