RESUMEN
Background: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone positioning has been widely applied for non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients. However, the efficacy and safety of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure remain unclear. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning (APP). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to June 3, 2022. This study included adult patients with acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]). Results: A total of 495 studies were identified, of which 10 fulfilled the selection criteria, and 2294 patients were included. In comparison to supine positioning, APP significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95). The two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.48-2.76). The meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality between the groups (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11). Conclusions: APP was safe and reduced the need for intubation in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. However, it did not significantly reduce mortality in comparison to usual care without prone positioning.
RESUMEN
Background Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone positioning has been widely applied for non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients. However, the efficacy and safety of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure remain unclear. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning (APP). Methods We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to June 3, 2022. This study included adult patients with acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs;95% confidence interval [CI]). Results A total of 495 studies were identified, of which 10 fulfilled the selection criteria, and 2294 patients were included. In comparison to supine positioning, APP significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.95). The two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.48–2.76). The meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality between the groups (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11). Conclusions APP was safe and reduced the need for intubation in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. However, it did not significantly reduce mortality in comparison to usual care without prone positioning.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: Research on the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on psychosocial function in patients with pediatric-onset inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological status of patients with PIBD before and during the pandemic, and the relationship between mental health and disease activity. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the relationship between demographic, clinical data and psychological data (questionnaires) of PIBD patients before and during the epidemic. The anxiety and depression emotional status of the guardians during the pandemic were evaluated. Results: In the PIBD follow-up cohort, 42 patients(male 61.9%) were included. Female with PIBD had lower pediatric quality of life inventory(PedsQL) scores (P = 0.007) and higher spence children's anxiety scale(SCAS) scores (P = 0.038) than male. The pandemic did not have a substantial impact on PedsQL, pittsburgh sleep quality index(PSQI), SCAS, or children's depression inventory(CDI) in patients with PIBD. The self-rating anxiety scale(SAS) score, anxiety rate, self-rating depression scale(SDS) score, and depression rate of PIBD guardians were significantly higher than those of healthy controls (SAS, P = 0.008; SDS, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Female children with PIBD were more vulnerable to decreased QOL and increased anxiety than male children. The anxiety and depression status of PIBD guardians were significantly higher than those of healthy controls during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect quality of life(QOL), sleep, anxiety, or depressive mood of patients with PIBD in our study.