ABSTRACT
Introduction: The use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a simple method that can reduce intubation in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). Early and prolonged prone position has demonstrated benefits on mortality in mechanically ventilated patients and on intubation in awake patients with ARF. However, strategies to achieve adherence to awake prone positioning (APP) have not been previously described. Case and outcomes: We present six patients with ARF due to COVID-19 treated with HFNO and APP. The median (p25-75) of PaFiO2 upon admission was 121 (112-175). The average duration of APP on the first day was 16 h (SD 5 h). Duration (median p25-75) in APP for the following 20 days was 13 (10-18) h/day. Several strategies such as the presence of a health care team, recreational activities, adaptation of the circadian rhythm, oral nutritional support, and analgesics were used to improve prone tolerance. None of the patients suffered from delirium, all were ambulating on discharge from the ICU and none require intubation. Conclusion: The case series presented show the feasibility of prolonged use of HFNO and APP in patients with COVID-19 and severe persistent hypoxemia and described strategies to enhance adherence.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)]. CONCLUSION: In the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.