The number of new patients diagnosed with COVID-19 continues to increase globally. Approximately 70–80% of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 show mild to moderate respiratory symptoms; however, between 5% and 32% of these patients may develop severe symptoms and require ICU admission, of whom between 3% and 22% may require mechanical ventilation and between 0.5% and 5% may require oxygenation with ECMO [3, 4, 10, 32, 38–40]. Depending on the efficacy of infection control strategies, a shortage of ICU ventilators may or may not eventuate.
Exceeding hospital bed capacity would likely increase the community spread of SARS-CoV-2 and lead to decreased quality of healthcare and intensive care [17]. In China, national lockdown, quarantine, and social distancing measures were adopted to control the spread of infection, with > 10000 beds designated for the isolation and treatment of patients with confirmed COVID-19 by early February, 2020 [17]. Despite these efforts to control the spread of infection, this did not lead to an immediate downturn in demand for hospitalization in critical care units and in ICUs in China [17], and this situation has been similar in Japan.
Our results indicated a critical need to isolate and treat patients with COVID-19; however, while there remained a small margin for critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation and ECMO in terms of ICU capacity, this situation was sub-optimal. Intensivists do not necessarily attend to all critically ill patients, and have been reported to provide care to only 37% of all ICU patients [41]. In the United States, one study reported that only approximately 30% of intensive care units were staffed by dedicated intensivists [42]. We have assumed that these percentages are likely to be the same or no greater in Japan. The number of critically ill patients in ICU at the peak of the epidemic accounted for 19% of total board-certified intensivists in Japan, which challenged Japan’s ICU capacity.
Our findings also showed a regional bias in terms of ICUs being overwhelmed in Japan. Kanto-Koshinetsu and Kansai are the biggest regions in Japan. The Kanto-Koshinetsu region includes Japan’s capital city, Tokyo, which is the most populous prefecture and also includes Kanagawa, which is the second most populous prefecture. The Kansai region includes Osaka, which is the third most populous prefecture. A large population and the movement of people to and from these regions is thought to have spread the infection, which resulted in medical capacity becoming overwhelmed. Hokkaido, the largest prefecture in Japan, had an increase in the number of patients with COVID-19 in the early phase of the epidemic. Epidemiological evidence to explain this phenomenon remains limited. Prior to the administration's state of emergency declaration, the local government in Hokkaido issued its own emergency declaration on February 28 2020 in an effort to control the spread of infection [43].
ECMO management in Japanese hospitals has previously resulted in poorer outcomes [44] compared with those reported in other countries during the N1H1 influenza epidemic [34, 45–49]. There is wide consensus that ECMO treatment should be performed at centers with high case volumes and established protocols, and involving clinicians who are experienced in its use. Patients who require ECMO treatment should be transferred to appropriate ECMO centers [34, 35, 44, 49]. Japan has introduced an ECMO project [36] and the ECMOnet [18, 20], which involve a consortium working to promote the appropriate use of ECMO, to help develop an evidence-based foundation for its use, to strive for continued improvement in its application where appropriate, and to collect data concerning the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and ECMO support [50, 51]. There are > 2000 ECMO machines available for use in Japan. The number of patients requiring ECMO was 3.2% of all ECMO machines at the peak of the epidemic, but the capacity levels in terms of use should not be overestimated. In terms of the hospitals participating in the ECMO project in Japan, the number of patients requiring ECMO was 62% of their work at the peak of epidemic, which is likely to provide a more realistic estimate of their intensive care capacity.
Our study had several limitations. First, the number of critically ill patients requiring intensive care was not completely addressed in the JSICM database. This database has been estimated to capture > 80% of clinical cases [20, 21]; however, it relies heavily on the cooperation of physicians struggling to treat large numbers of critically ill patients.
Second, the extent of the ICU capacity was not completely validated nor was the number of patients requiring admission to ICUs. The JSICM reported the estimated number of ventilators and ECMO machines according to responses to a questionnaire sent to its member hospitals. Therefore, there was risk of overestimating ICU capacity. Third, the assumption of one critically ill patient to one depressurized area per hospital did not necessarily reflect the real life situation. For example, one author’s institution was designated as a Category II infectious diseases institution with eight ICU beds, one depressurized area, and six Category II beds, with one board-certified intensivist. This institution was not a member of the ECMO project. Six Category II beds were fully occupied as soon as the number of infected patients threatened to overwhelm the capacity of the ICU, and other wards were then rearranged to manage patients with mild manifestations of COVID-19. There were two alternatives to treat critically ill patients with COVID-19: one was to use an ICU depressurized bed, and the other was to rearrange the beds in the emergency department. The latter option was chosen because other critically ill and surgical patients could not be treated in the ICU when occupied by patients with COVID-19 for fear of airborne transmissions. Most hospitals are thought to have flexibly employed a variety of methods to increase their capacity to treat patients with COVID-19.