Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 50
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 127, 2022 05 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1822203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning improves survival in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This benefit is probably mediated by a decrease in alveolar collapse and hyperinflation and a more homogeneous distribution of lung aeration, with fewer harms from mechanical ventilation. In this preliminary physiological study we aimed to verify whether prone positioning causes analogue changes in lung aeration in COVID-19. A positive result would support prone positioning even in this other population. METHODS: Fifteen mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19 underwent a lung computed tomography in the supine and prone position with a constant positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) within three days of endotracheal intubation. Using quantitative analysis, we measured the volume of the non-aerated, poorly-aerated, well-aerated, and over-aerated compartments and the gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung. In addition, we expressed the heterogeneity of lung aeration with the standardized median absolute deviation of the ten vertical gas-to-tissue ratios, with lower values indicating less heterogeneity. RESULTS: By the time of the study, PEEP was 12 (10-14) cmH2O and the PaO2:FiO2 107 (84-173) mmHg in the supine position. With prone positioning, the volume of the non-aerated compartment decreased by 82 (26-147) ml, of the poorly-aerated compartment increased by 82 (53-174) ml, of the normally-aerated compartment did not significantly change, and of the over-aerated compartment decreased by 28 (11-186) ml. In eight (53%) patients, the volume of the over-aerated compartment decreased more than the volume of the non-aerated compartment. The gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung decreased by 0.34 (0.25-0.49) ml/g per level in the supine position and by 0.03 (- 0.11 to 0.14) ml/g in the prone position (p < 0.001). The standardized median absolute deviation of the gas-to-tissue ratios of those ten levels decreased in all patients, from 0.55 (0.50-0.71) to 0.20 (0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In fifteen patients with COVID-19, prone positioning decreased alveolar collapse, hyperinflation, and homogenized lung aeration. A similar response has been observed in other ARDS, where prone positioning improves outcome. Therefore, our data provide a pathophysiological rationale to support prone positioning even in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Prone Position/physiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
2.
J Bras Pneumol ; 48(2): e20210374, 2022.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819119

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that lead to a positive oxygenation response and predictive factors of mortality after prone positioning. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study involving seven hospitals in Brazil. Inclusion criteria were being > 18 years of age with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, being on invasive mechanical ventilation, having a PaO2/FIO2 ratio < 150 mmHg, and being submitted to prone positioning. After the first prone positioning session, a 20 mmHg improvement in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio was defined as a positive response. RESULTS: The study involved 574 patients, 412 (72%) of whom responded positively to the first prone positioning session. Multiple logistic regression showed that responders had lower Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS III)/SOFA scores and lower D-dimer levels (p = 0.01; p = 0.04; and p = 0.04, respectively). It was suggested that initial SAPS III and initial PaO2/FIO2 were predictors of oxygenation response. The mortality rate was 69.3%. Increased risk of mortality was associated with age (OR = 1.04 [95 CI: 1.01-1.06]), time to first prone positioning session (OR = 1.18 [95 CI: 1.06-1.31]), number of sessions (OR = 1.31 [95% CI: 1.00-1.72]), proportion of pulmonary impairment (OR = 1.55 [95% CI: 1.02-2.35]), and immunosuppression (OR = 3.83 [95% CI: 1.35-10.86]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that most patients in our sample had a positive oxygenation response after the first prone positioning session. However, the mortality rate was high, probably due to the health status and the number of comorbidities of the patients, as well as the severity of their disease. Our results also suggest that SAPS III and the initial PaO2/FIO2 predict the oxygenation response; in addition, age, time to first prone positioning, number of sessions, pulmonary impairment, and immunosuppression can predict mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Cohort Studies , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Prone Position/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
3.
BMC Pulm Med ; 22(1): 71, 2022 Feb 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1698249

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning enables the redistribution of lung weight, leading to the improvement of gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. We aimed to evaluate whether the initial findings of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on computed tomography (CT) are associated with the subsequent response to prone positioning in terms of oxygenation and 60-day mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients who underwent prone positioning for moderate to severe ARDS from October 2014 to November 2020 at a medical center in Taiwan. A semiquantitative CT rating scale was used to quantify the extent of consolidation and ground-glass opacification (GGO) in the sternal, central and vertebral regions at three levels (apex, hilum and base) of the lungs. A prone responder was identified by a 20% increase in the ratio of arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2) to the fraction of oxygen (FiO2) or a 20 mmHg increase in PaO2. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included, of whom 68 (70.8%) were responders. Compared with nonresponders, responders had a significantly greater median dorsal-ventral difference in CT-consolidation scores (10 vs. 7, p = 0.046) but not in CT-GGO scores (- 1 vs. - 1, p = 0.974). Although dorsal-ventral differences in neither CT-consolidation scores nor CT-GGO scores were associated with 60-day mortality, high total CT-GGO scores (≥ 15) were an independent factor associated with 60-day mortality (odds ratio = 4.07, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-11.89, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a greater difference in the extent of consolidation along the dependent-independent axis on CT scan is associated with subsequent prone positioning oxygenation response, but not clinical outcome regarding survival. High total CT-GGO scores were independently associated with 60-day mortality.


Subject(s)
Pulmonary Gas Exchange , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Prognosis , Prone Position/physiology , Pulmonary Gas Exchange/physiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
4.
J Intensive Care Med ; 37(7): 883-889, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1708739

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Prone positioning is widely used in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19; however, the specific clinical scenario in which the individual is most poised to benefit is not fully established. In patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, how effective is prone positioning in improving oxygenation and can that response be predicted? DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study from two tertiary care centers including consecutive patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19 from 3/1/2020 - 7/1/2021. The primary outcome is improvement in oxygenation as measured by PaO2/FiO2. We describe oxygenation before, during and after prone episodes with a focus on identifying patient, respiratory or ventilator variables that predict prone positioning success. SETTING: 2 Tertiary Care Academic Hospitals. PATIENTS: 125 patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19 respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: Prone positioning. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients underwent prone positioning a total of 309 times for a median duration of 23 hours IQR (14 - 49). On average, PaO2/FiO2 improved 19%: from 115 mm Hg (80 - 148) immediately before proning to 137 mm Hg (95 - 197) immediately after returning to the supine position. Prone episodes were more successful if the pre-prone PaO2/FiO2 was lower and if the patient was on inhaled epoprostenol (iEpo). For individuals with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (PaO2/FiO2 < 100 prior to prone positioning) and on iEpo, the median improvement in PaO2/FiO2 was 27% in both instances. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 is generally associated with sustained improvements in oxygenation, which is made more likely by the concomitant use of iEpo and is more impactful in those who are more severely hypoxemic prior to prone positioning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Epoprostenol , Humans , Prone Position/physiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
5.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(4): 480-485, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709324

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited effective interventions exist in the emergency department (ED) for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. One of the promising interventions is the prone position, which has been proven to improve oxygenation in ICU settings. Here, we aimed to describe and assess the utility of the prone position in awake non-intubated adult patients in EDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of hypoxic COVID-19 adult patients who presented to our emergency department. We collected the data from June to the end of August 2020, including vital signs and physiological and clinical parameters before and after completing the four-hour prone position protocol. The main outcomes assessed were improvement in oxygenation, respiratory rate, respiratory distress score, ICU admission, and intubation. Oxygenation was calculated based on the standard pulse oximeter saturation [SpO2]/fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (FiO2). RESULTS: The study included 49 patients (81.63% men; mean age, 53.37 ± 11 years). The mean oxygen saturation during the triage was 84.49% ± 7.98 on room air. After completing of the four-hour prone protocol, the mean SpO2/FiO2 ratio increased from 1.62 ± 0.78-1.99 ± 0.75 (p < 0.0001). The respiratory rate decreased from 32.45 ± 5.24-26.29 ± 5.40 (p < 0.0001). Respiratory distress scores decreased after changing patients' positions (p < 0.0001). Twenty-four patients (48.9%) were admitted to the ICU, 6 patients were intubated (12.2%), and 7 (14.3%) died in the hospital. CONCLUSION: After applying the prone position in the ED, significant and immediate improvement was observed in oxygenation, respiratory rate, respiratory distress, and carbon dioxide levels. A linear relationship between the level of improvement in oxygenation and reduction in ICU admission was observed. However, further studies recommended to assess the advantage of the procedure in terms of ICU admission, intubation, or mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prone Position/physiology , Prospective Studies , Wakefulness
7.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol ; 298: 103844, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1620996

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Use of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning is common in patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory failure. Few data clarify the hemodynamic effects of these interventions in this specific condition. We performed a physiologic study to assess the hemodynamic effects of PEEP and prone position during COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: Nine adult patients mechanically ventilated due to COVID-19 infection and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were studied. Respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, cardiac output, oxygen consumption, systemic and pulmonary pressures were recorded through pulmonary arterial catheterization at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O, and after prone positioning. Recruitability was assessed through the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. RESULTS: High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio in all patients (p = 0.004), and significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.012), regardless of lung recruitability. PEEP-induced increases in PaO2/FiO2 changes were strictly correlated with shunt fraction reduction (rho=-0.82, p = 0.01). From low to high PEEP, cardiac output decreased by 18 % (p = 0.05) and central venous pressure increased by 17 % (p = 0.015). As compared to supine position with low PEEP, prone positioning significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.03), increased PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.03) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (p = 0.016), without affecting cardiac output. PaO2/FiO2 was improved by prone position also when compared to high PEEP (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS due to COVID-19, PEEP and prone position improve arterial oxygenation. Changes in cardiac output contribute to the effects of PEEP but not of prone position, which appears the most effective intervention to improve oxygenation with no hemodynamic side effects.


Subject(s)
Blood Pressure/physiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Rate/physiology , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Oxygen Consumption/physiology , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Prone Position , Vascular Resistance/physiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hemodynamic Monitoring , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Prone Position/physiology
8.
Br J Anaesth ; 128(2): 352-362, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525703

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients is becoming widely applied in practice alongside noninvasive respiratory support. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effect, timing, and populations that might benefit from awake proning regarding oxygenation, mortality, and tracheal intubation compared with supine position in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and BMJ Best Practice until August 2021 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42021250322). Studies included comprise least-wise 20 adult patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria and 2352 patients were included; of those patients, 99% (n=2332/2352) had COVID-19. Amongst 1041 (44%) patients who were placed in the prone position, 1021 were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference -23.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -34.80 to 11.39; P=0.0001; I2=26%) after prone positioning. In patients with COVID-19, lower mortality was found in the group placed in the prone position (150/771 prone vs 391/1457 supine; odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.80; P=0.003; I2=48%), but the tracheal intubation rate was unchanged (284/824 prone vs 616/1271 supine; OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43-1.22; P=0.220; I2=75%). Overall proning was tolerated for a median of 4 h (inter-quartile range: 2-16). CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning can improve oxygenation amongst non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure when applied for at least 4 h over repeated daily episodes. Awake proning appears safe, but the effect on tracheal intubation rate and survival remains uncertain.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Wakefulness/physiology , Humans
9.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): e1001-e1014, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475867

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Prone Position/physiology , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Patient Positioning , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology
10.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 315, 2021 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1383659

ABSTRACT

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at  https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from  https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Patient Positioning/standards , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/trends , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Patient Positioning/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications , Survival Analysis
11.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 220, 2021 Aug 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344108

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: When compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Prone Position/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/trends , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies
12.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 14407, 2021 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1309466

ABSTRACT

Prone position (PP) is known to improve oxygenation and reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of PP on respiratory parameters and outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched up to 1st January 2021. Twenty-eight studies were included. The Cochran's Q-test and I2 statistic were assessed heterogeneity, the random-effects model was estimated the pooled mean difference (PMD), and a meta-regression method has utilized the factors affecting heterogeneity between studies. PMD with 95% confidence interval (CI) of PaO2/FIO2 Ratio in before-after design, quasi-experimental design and in overall was 55.74, 56.38, and 56.20 mmHg. These values for Spo2 (Sao2) were 3.38, 17.03, and 7.58. PP in COVID-19 patients lead to significantly decrease of the Paco2 (PMD: - 8.69; 95% CI - 14.69 to - 2.69 mmHg) but significantly increase the PaO2 (PMD: 37.74; 95% CI 7.16-68.33 mmHg). PP has no significant effect on the respiratory rate. Based on meta-regression, the study design has a significant effect on the heterogeneity of Spo2 (Sao2) (Coefficient: 12.80; p < 0.001). No significant associations were observed for other respiratory parameters with sample size and study design. The pooled estimate for death rate and intubation rates were 19.03 (8.19-32.61) and 30.68 (21.39-40.75). The prone positioning was associated with improved oxygenation parameters and reduced mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 related respiratory failure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Prone Position/physiology , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Models, Theoretical , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
16.
Respir Med ; 181: 106379, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1164392

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been recommended as an adjunctive measure in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains uncertain as to how long this should be implemented, what variables to follow and who would be the ideal candidates for this adjunctive therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients admitted from April to August 2020 within our institution with multifocal pneumonia and hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who underwent awake-proning for at least 3 hours was conducted. RESULTS: Improvement in respiratory parameters including ROX (SpO2/Fio2/ Respiratory Rate) indices and inflammatory markers within 4 days of institution of awake proning predicted a higher chance for success of this strategy in preventing need for mechanical ventilation. Moreover, benefits of awake proning were limited to patients with mild to moderate ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone positioning can be safely performed with improvement in oxygenation. However, its institution may be beneficial only in patients with mild to moderate ARDS and requires careful evaluation of respiratory parameters and serum inflammatory markers to avoid a delay in endotracheal intubation and consequent increase in mortality rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , Female , Humans , Inflammation Mediators/blood , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
19.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 104(5): 1676-1686, 2021 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1128113

ABSTRACT

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Disease , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Health Personnel , Humans , Wakefulness
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL