Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Awake prone positioning (APP) of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure gained considerable attention during the early phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, reports of APP were limited to case series in patients with influenza and in immunocompromised patients, with encouraging results in terms of tolerance and oxygenation improvement. Prone positioning of awake patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to result in many of the same physiological changes improving oxygenation seen in invasively ventilated patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A number of randomised controlled studies published on patients with varying severity of COVID-19 have reported apparently contrasting outcomes. However, there is consistent evidence that more hypoxaemic patients requiring advanced respiratory support, who are managed in higher care environments and who can be prone for several hours, benefit most from APP use. We review the physiological basis by which prone positioning results in changes in lung mechanics and gas exchange and summarise the latest evidence base for APP primarily in COVID-19. We examine the key factors that influence the success of APP, the optimal target populations for APP and the key unknowns that will shape future research.

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review.

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

Efficacy and safety of prone position in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups. CONCLUSION: For non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Prone position reduces the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 progressing to severe or even critical cases: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether prone position can reduce the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who progress to severe or critical illness. METHODS: The prone position group was treated in prone position on the day of admission in addition to conventional treatment. Indicators such as saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO2), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and prone position-related adverse events were recorded before prone ventilation, 5 min after prone position and 30 min after prone position. Meanwhile, the cases of severe and critical patients, the percentage of transformation and the final clinical outcome of this group were analyzed. Conversion rates and mortality were calculated for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 retrieved from the database who received only conventional care without combined prone positioning as control group. RESULTS: (1) A total of 34 patients were included in prone position group. There were significant differences in SpO2 between the first 4 days after admission and the day of discharge (F = 3.17, P < 0.001). (2) The main complications were back and neck muscle soreness (55.9%), followed by abdominal distension (8.9%). (3) In control group, a total of 4873 cases of mild and moderate patients were included from 19 literatures, with an average deterioration rate of 22.7% and mortality rate of 1.7%. (4) In prone position group, there were no severe or critical transformation cases and also no death cases. The prone position group had a significantly lower deterioration rate when compared with the control group (χ2 = 9.962, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prone position improves SpO2 in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. It can also reduce the percentage of mild or moderate patients progressing to severe or critical patients. The application of prone position is a simple, feasible, safe and effective treatment method in such patients.

Prone Chest Radiographs: Distinguishing Features and Identification of Support Devices.

PURPOSE: Prone position is known to improve acute lung injury, and chest radiographs are often necessary to monitor disease and confirm support device placement. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding radiographs obtained in this position. We evaluated prone radiographs for distinguishing features and ability to identify support devices. METHODS: Pairs of prone and supine radiographs obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed retrospectively. IRB approval and waiver of informed consent were obtained. Radiographs were assessed for imaging adequacy, distinguishing features, and support device identification (endotracheal tube, enteric tube, or central line). Radiographs were reviewed by ≥ 2 cardiothoracic radiologists. RESULTS: Radiographs from 81 patients (63yo ± 13, 30% women) were reviewed. Prone and supine radiographs were comparable for imaging the lung bases (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.35) and apices (93% vs. 94%, p = 1); prone radiographs more frequently had significant rotation (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.021). To identify prone technique, scapula tip located beyond the rib border was 89% sensitive (95%CI 80-95%) and 85% specific (76-92%), and a fundal stomach bubble was 44% sensitive (33-56%) and 90% specific (81-96%). For women, displaced breast shadow was 46% sensitive (26-67%) and 92% specific (73-99%). Prone and supine radiographs each identified > 99% of support devices. Prone exams trended toward increased rate of malpositioned device (12% vs. 6%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Scapula position reliably distinguishes prone from supine position; fundal stomach bubble or displaced breast shadow is specific for prone position. Prone radiographs reliably identify line and tube position, which is particularly important as prone patients appear at increased risk for malpositioned devices.

COVID-19 Lessons Learned: Prone Positioning With and Without Invasive Ventilation.

Prone positioning (PP) has been used extensively for patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that PP was beneficial during the pandemic, as it improves oxygenation and might improve chances of survival, especially in those with a continuum of positive oxygenation responses to the procedure. Additionally, the pandemic drove innovation regarding PP, as it brought attention to awake PP (APP) and the value of an interdisciplinary team approach to PP during a pandemic. APP appears to be safe and effective at improving oxygenation; APP may also reduce the need for intubation in patients requiring advanced respiratory support like high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation. Teams specifically assembled for PP during a pandemic also appear useful and can provide needed assistance to bedside clinicians in the time of crisis. Complications associated with PP can be mitigated, and a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the incidence of complications is recommended.

Effect of Prone Positioning on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Subjects With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been recently proposed as an adjunctive treatment for non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring oxygen therapy to improve oxygenation and reduce the risk of intubation. However, the magnitude of the effect of APP on clinical outcomes in these patients remains uncertain. We performed a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of APP to improve the clinical outcomes in non-intubated subjects with COVID-19. METHODS: The primary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation and mortality. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 9 observational studies) involving 3,324 subjects (1,495 received APP and 1,829 did not) were included. There was a significant reduction in the mortality rate in APP group compared to control (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.51-0.90]; P = .008, I2 = 52%) with no significant effect on intubation (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.66-1.08]; P = .17, I2 = 63%) or hospital length of stay (mean difference -3.09 d [95% CI-10.14-3.96]; P = .39, I2 = 97%). Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed significant reduction in intubation rate (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.97]; P = .02, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: APP has the potential to reduce the in-hospital mortality rate in COVID-19 subjects with hypoxemia without a significant effect on the need for intubation or length of hospital stay. However, there was a significant decrease in the need for intubation on subgroup analysis of RCTs. More large-scale trials with a standardized protocol for prone positioning are needed to better evaluate its effectiveness in this select population.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Beneficial Effect of Prone Positioning During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The study investigated the impact of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory failure on the patient outcome. DESIGN: An observational study of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients. We used a multistate survival model to compare the outcomes of patients treated with or without prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which incorporates the dynamic nature of prone positioning and adjusts for potential confounders. SETTING: Seventy-two international institutions participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium international registry. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients who were supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 232 coronavirus disease 2019 patients at 72 participating institutions who were supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period from February 16, 2020, to October 31, 2020. Proning was used in 176 patients (76%) before initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and in 67 patients (29%) during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survival to hospital discharge was 33% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation prone group versus 22% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation supine group. Prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights that prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for refractory coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of the study, a randomized controlled trial of prone positioning on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is needed to confirm these findings.

Prone positioning for non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in an adult with single-ventricle physiology: a case report.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can induce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In patients with congenital heart disease, established treatment strategies are often limited due to their unique cardiovascular anatomy and passive pulmonary perfusion. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the first case of an adult with single-ventricle physiology and bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt who suffered from severe COVID-19 ARDS. Treatment strategies were successfully adopted, and pulmonary vascular resistance was reduced, both medically and through prone positioning, leading to a favorable outcome. CONCLUSION: ARDS treatment strategies including ventilatory settings, prone positioning therapy and cannulation techniques for extracorporeal oxygenation must be adopted carefully considering the passive venous return in patients with single-ventricle physiology.

Skin damage prevention in the prone ventilated critically ill patient: A comprehensive review and gap analysis (PRONEtect study).

BACKGROUND: Ventilating critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position is a life-saving strategy, but it is associated with adverse consequences such as skin damage. AIM: To identify, review and evaluate international proning and skin care guidelines and make an inventory of commonly used equipment and training resources. DESIGN: A gap analysis methodology was applied. METHODS: 1) Comprehensive search and evaluation of proning and skin care guidelines, 2) extensive search and listing equipment and educational resources, and 3) international consultation with 11 experts (8 countries). DATA SOURCES: A variety of sources researched through July 2021 were used to identify relevant literature: (1) scientific literature databases and clinical trials registries, (2) intensive care and wound care associations, (3) healthcare organisations, (4) guideline development organisations, and (5) the Google search engine. Eleven international experts reviewed the literature and provided insights in two, 2-h online sessions. FINDINGS: The search yielded 24 guidelines. One clinical practice guideline had high methodological quality. Twenty-five devices/equipment and sixteen teaching materials were identified and discussed with the expert panel. The gap analysis identified a lack of concise, accessible, evidence-based guidelines and educational materials of short duration. CONCLUSION: This analysis forms the basis for designing a competency-based education and training intervention for an interdisciplinary team caring for the skin of critically ill patients in the prone position. IMPACT: The results can assist the multidisciplinary team to review their current protocol for prone positioning. This is a first step in developing a training package for clinicians.

Creating a pronation therapy team: One hospital's journey.

ABSTRACT: Prone positioning is a recommended therapy for patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. This article describes the creation, operation, and evolution of the pronation therapy team at the author's Veterans Affairs facility.