Prone position ventilation in non-intubated, spontaneously ventilating patients: New guidance from the Intensive Care Society (UK) and existing evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Purvis P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10621498 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prone position ventilation in non-intubated, spontaneously ventilating patients: New guidance from the Intensive Care Society (UK) and existing evidence.
Purvis Paul P Francis Oliver O
Journal of the Intensive Care Society 20200528 3 Suppl
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundProne position ventilation (PPV) is resource-intensive, yet the optimal strategy for PPV in intubated patients with COVID-19 is unclear.Research questionDoes a prolonged (24 or more h) PPV strategy improve mortality in intubated COVID-19 patients compared with intermittent (∼16 h with daily supination) PPV?Study design and methodsMulticenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted intubated COVID-19 patients treated with PPV between March 11 and May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality and prone-related complications. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) were used to control for potential treatment selection bias.ResultsOf the COVID-19 patients who received PPV, 157 underwent prolonged and 110 underwent intermittent PPV. Patients undergoing prolonged PPV had reduced 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.475; 95% CI, 0.336-0.670; P < .001) and 90-day (aHR, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.461-0.883; P = .006) mortality compared with intermittent PPV. In patients with Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 150 at the time of pronation, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced 30-day (aHR, 0.357; 95% CI, 0.213-0.597; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (aHR, 0.562; 95% CI, 0.357-0.884; P = .008). Patients treated with prolonged PPV underwent fewer pronation and supination events (median, 1; 95% CI, 1-2 vs 3; 95% CI, 1-4; P < .001). PPV strategy was not associated with overall PPV-related complications, although patients receiving prolonged PPV had increased rates of facial edema and lower rates of peri-proning hypotension.InterpretationAmong intubated COVID-19 patients who received PPV, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced mortality. Prolonged PPV was associated with fewer pronation and supination events and a small increase in rates of facial edema. These findings suggest that prolonged PPV is a safe, effective strategy for mortality reduction in intubated COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9635255 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9241304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeStudies performed in spontaneously breathing patients with mild to moderate respiratory failure suggested that prone position (PP) in COVID-19 could be beneficial.Materials and methodsConsecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in four ICUs. PP sessions lasted at least 3 h each and were performed twice daily. A Cox proportional hazard model identified factors associated with the need of intubation. A propensity score overlap weighting analysis was performed to assess the association between spontaneous breathing PP (SBPP) and intubation.ResultsAmong 379 patients, 40 underwent SBPP. Oxygenation was achieved by high flow nasal canula in all but three patients. Duration of proning was 2.5 [1.6;3.4] days. SBPP was well tolerated hemodynamically, increased PaO2/FiO2 (78 [68;96] versus 63 [53;77] mm Hg, p = 0.004) and PaCO2 (38 [34;43] versus 35 [32;38] mm Hg, p = 0.005). Neither day-28 survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16-1.16] nor risk of invasive ventilation [sHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.49;1.88] differed between patients who underwent PP and others.ConclusionsSBPP in COVID-19 is feasible and well tolerated in severely hypoxemic patients. It did not induce any effect on risk of intubation and day-28 mortality.
| S-EPMC8087575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) in intubated COVID-19 patients.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded.ResultsEleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low).ConclusionProne ventilation improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SpO2 in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.
| S-EPMC9259191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While benefits of prone position in mechanically-ventilated patients have been well-described, a randomized-control trial to determine the effects of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously-breathing patients with an acute pneumonia has not been previously conducted. Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-Intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: the "PRONE" Study (PRONE) was conducted in non-intubated hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia as defined by respiratory rate ≥ 20/min or an oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) ≤ 93% without supplemental oxygen [1]. The PRONE trial was designed to investigate the effects of prone positioning on need for escalation in respiratory support, as defined by need for transition to a higher acuity level of care, increased fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary objectives were to assess the duration of effect of prone positioning on respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate and SpO2, as well as other outcomes such as time to discharge or transition in level of care.
| S-EPMC8363159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFourteen 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).ConclusionsProne 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.
| S-EPMC8514681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany studies have investigated a comparison of the potency and safety of PCV versus VCV modes in spinal surgery in prone position. However, controversy about the maximal benefits of which ventilation modes remains. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate which one is the optimal ventilation for surgery patients undergoing spine surgery in prone position between the two ventilation modes as PCV and VCV.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for potentially eligible articles. The continuous outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference and the associated 95% confidence interval. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 8 RCTs involving a total of 454 patients between 2012 and 2020. The results demonstrated that IOB, Ppeak and CVP for VCV are significantly superior to PCV in spinal surgery in prone position. And PCV had higher Cdyn and PaO2/FiO2 than VCV. But there was no significant difference between PCV and VCV in terms of POB, Hb, HCT, HR and MAP.ConclusionsThe PCV mode displayed a more satisfying effect than VCV mode. Compared to VCV mode in same preset of tidal volume, the patients with PCV mode in prone position demonstrated less IOB, lower Ppeak and CVP, and higher PaO2/FiO2 in spinal surgery. However, there is no obvious difference between PCV and VCV in terms of hemodynamics variables (HR and MAP).
| S-EPMC9207057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emergency departments are facing an unprecedented challenge in dealing with patients who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The massive number of cases evolving to respiratory failure are leading to a rapid depletion of medical resources such as respiratory support equipment, which is more critical in low- and middle-income countries. In this context, any therapeutic and oxygenation support strategy that conserves medical resources should be welcomed. Prone positioning is a well-known ventilatory support strategy to improve oxygenation levels. Self-proning can be used in the management of selected patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we describe our experience with two COVID-19-positive patients who were admitted with respiratory failure. The patients were successfully managed with self-proning and noninvasive oxygenation without the need for intubation.
| S-EPMC7236748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Prone position ventilation (PPV) can significantly improve oxygenation index and blood oxygen saturation in most (70%-80%) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, although PPV is not an invasive procedure, there are many potential PPV-related complications, such as nerve compression, crush injury, venous stasis (e.g., facial oedema), pressure sores, retinal damage, vomiting, and arrhythmia, with an incidence of up to 56.9%. Nursing managers have focused on reducing the occurrence of PPV-related complications and improving safety. Objective: To construct a prone ventilation management scheme for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and analyse its application effect. Methods: Based on a previous evidence-based study combined with the COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol (Trial Edition 9), a prone ventilation management protocol for severe COVID-19 was formulated and applied to COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit of a designated hospital. A prospective self-control study was used to compare changes in the oxygenation index and other outcome indicators before and after the intervention. Results: The oxygenation index of patients after intervention (321.22 ± 19.77 mmHg) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than before intervention (151.59 ± 35.49 mmHg). The difference in oxygenation index in different prone position ventilation durations was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Nursing quality evaluation indicators showed that the implementation rate of gastric residual volume assessment was 100% and the incidence of occupational exposure and cross-infection was 0%; the incidences of pressure ulcers, drug extravasation, and facial oedema were 13.64% (3/22), 4.54% (1/22), and 4.54% (1/22), respectively. The incidence of unplanned extubation, aspiration, and falls/falls was 0%.
| S-EPMC10488700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave.MethodsRetrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position.ResultsOf 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively).ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670.
| S-EPMC8022297 | biostudies-literature