Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) in intubated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low). CONCLUSION: Prone ventilation improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio and SpO₂ in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.

High-Dose versus Low-Dose Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low- dose corticosteroids on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL). PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive. INTERVENTIONS: High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I2=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I2= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I2=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I2=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I2=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I2=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I2=29%). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.

Effect of prone versus supine position in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of prone position and supine position on oxygenation parameters in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized trials. PATIENTS: Databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until March 2021. INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 patients being positioned in the prone position either whilst awake or mechanically ventilated. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were oxygenation parameters (PaO2/FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, SpO2). Secondary outcomes included the rate of intubation and mortality rate. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (n = 1712 patients) were included in this review. In comparison to the supine group, prone position significantly improved the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (study = 13, patients = 1002, Mean difference, MD 52.15, 95% CI 37.08 to 67.22; p < 0.00001) and SpO2 (study = 11, patients = 998, MD 4.17, 95% CI 2.53 to 5.81; p ≤0.00001). Patients received prone position were associated with lower incidence of mortality (study = 5, patients = 688, Odd ratio, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.80; p = 0.007). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of intubation rate (study = 5, patients = 626, OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; p = 0.42) between the supine and prone groups. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prone position improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio with better SpO2 than supine position in COVID-19 patients. Given the limited number of studies with small sample size and substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes, further studies are warranted to standardize the regime of prone position to improve the certainty of evidence. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234050.