Declining Use of Prone Positioning After High Initial Uptake in COVID-19 Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been underused, but was widely adopted for COVID-19-associated ARDS early in the pandemic. Whether this successful implementation has been sustained over the first 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown. In this study, we characterized proning use in patients with COVID-19 ARDS from March 2020 to December 2022. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational study. SETTING: Five-hospital health system in Maryland, USA. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19 supported with invasive mechanical ventilation and with a Pao2/Fio2 ratio of less than or equal to 150 mm Hg while receiving Fio2 of greater than or equal to 0.6 within 72 hours of intubation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: We extracted demographic, clinical, and positioning data from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the initiation of proning within 48 hours of meeting criteria. We compared proning use by year with univariate and multivariate relative risk (RR) regression. Additionally, we evaluated the association of treatment during a COVID-19 surge period and receipt of prone positioning. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 656 qualifying patients; 341 from 2020, 224 from 2021, and 91 from 2022. More than half (53%) met severe ARDS criteria. Early proning occurred in 56.2% of patients in 2020, 56.7% in 2021, and 27.5% in 2022. This translated to a 51% reduction in use of prone positioning among patients treated in 2022 versus 2020 (RR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.72; p < 0.001). This reduction remained significant in adjusted models (adjusted RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.82; p = 0.002). Treatment during COVID-19 surge periods was associated with a 7% increase in proning use (adjusted RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The use of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS is declining. Interventions to increase and sustain appropriate use of this evidence-based therapy are warranted.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Prone Positioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE: The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews. RESULTS: ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic proning is viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS, rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure-injuries), facilitated greater proning use. Hospitals level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support, and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

Outcomes Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Severe Pneumonia and Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure From SARS-CoV-2 and Other Etiologies.

Importance: Early observations suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than other causes of pneumonia. Objective: To compare outcomes between mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia due to COVID-19 (March 2020 to June 2021) and other etiologies (July 2016 to December 2019). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Healthcare System among adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation in the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and mechanical ventilation data were extracted from admission to hospital discharge or death. Exposures: Pneumonia due to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, static respiratory system compliance, and ventilatory ratio. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, proportional hazards regression, and doubly robust regression were used in propensity score-matched sets to compare clinical outcomes. Results: Overall, 719 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 442 [61.5%] were male; 460 [64.0%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 253 [35.2%] were White) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and 1127 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [15.8] years; 586 [52.0%] were male; 459 [40.7%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 655 [58.1%] were White) with severe non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In unadjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41), longer time on mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and lower compliance (32.0 vs 28.4 mL/kg PBW/cm H2O; P < .001) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In propensity score-matched analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were equally likely to die within 90 days as those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.35; P = .85), had similar respiratory system compliance (mean difference, 1.82 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI, -1.53 to 5.17 mL/cm H2O; P = .28) and ventilatory ratio (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.11; P = .52), but had lower rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had somewhat lower rates of being discharged from the hospital alive at 90 days (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01) than those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia; however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had similar mortality rates as patients with other causes of severe pneumonia but longer times to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation use in COVID-19 pneumonia should follow the same evidence-based guidelines as for any pneumonia.

Comparing Prone Positioning Use in COVID-19 Versus Historic Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

IMPORTANCE: Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020–2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018–2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency. RESULTS: Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7–57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6;p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0;p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.