Awake prone positioning for non-intubated oxygen dependent COVID-19 pneumonia patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ng Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7251246 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning (APP) is widely used in the management of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients who received early versus late APP.MethodsPost hoc analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906). Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who received APP for at least one hour were included. Early prone positioning was defined as APP initiated within 24 h of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) start. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and intubation rate.ResultsWe included 125 patients (79 male) with a mean age of 62 years. Of them, 92 (73.6%) received early APP and 33 (26.4%) received late APP. Median time from HFNC initiation to APP was 2.25 (0.8-12.82) vs 36.35 (30.2-75.23) hours in the early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. Average APP duration was 5.07 (2.0-9.05) and 3.0 (1.09-5.64) hours per day in early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. The early APP group had lower mortality compared to the late APP group (26% vs 45%, p = 0.039), but no difference was found in intubation rate. Advanced age (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.0-1.95], p = 0.001), intubation (OR 10.65 [95% CI 2.77-40.91], p = 0.001), longer time to initiate APP (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.0-1.04], p = 0.047) and hydrocortisone use (OR 6.2 [95% CI 1.23-31.1], p = 0.027) were associated with increased mortality.ConclusionsEarly initiation (< 24 h of HFNC use) of APP in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 improves 28-day survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906.
| S-EPMC8446738 | 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:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly increased the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), necessitating respiratory support. This strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources forces clinicians to limit the use of mechanical ventilation by seeking novel therapeutic strategies. Awake-prone positioning appears to be a safe and tolerable intervention for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Meanwhile, several observational studies and meta-analyses have reported the early use of prone positioning in awake patients with COVID-19-related ARDS (C-ARDS) for improving oxygenation levels and preventing ICU transfers. Indeed, some international guidelines have recommended the early application of awake-prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure attributable to C-ARDS. However, its effectiveness in reducing intubation rate, mortality, applied timing, and optimal duration is unclear. High-quality evidence of awake-prone positioning for hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 is still lacking. Therefore, this article provides an update on the current state of published literature about the physiological rationale, effect, timing, duration, and populations that might benefit from awake proning. Moreover, the risks and adverse effects of awake-prone positioning were also investigated. This work will guide future studies and aid clinicians in deciding on better treatment plans.
| S-EPMC8858818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAwake prone positioning (APP) has been widely applied in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of APP and to identify the subpopulations that may benefit the most from it.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases from inception to August 2022 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022342426). We included only RCTs comparing APP with supine positioning or standard of care with no prone positioning. Our primary outcomes were the risk of intubation and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for escalating respiratory support, length of ICU and hospital stay, ventilation-free days, and adverse events.ResultsWe included 11 RCTs and showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation in the overall population (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95; moderate certainty). Following the subgroup analyses, a greater benefit was observed in two patient cohorts: those receiving a higher level of respiratory support (compared with those receiving conventional oxygen therapy) and those in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (compared to patients in non-ICU settings). APP did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11; moderate certainty) and did not increase the risk of adverse events.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, APP likely reduced the risk of requiring intubation, but failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall mortality risk. The benefits of APP are most noticeable in those requiring a higher level of respiratory support in an ICU environment.
| S-EPMC9917863 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7304963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is a well-known supportive approach for increasing oxygenation and reducing mortality in non-COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, studies highlighting the effects of proning in patients with COVID-19 are limited.AimTo investigate the effects of awake-prone positioning (APP) on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.Study designA randomized controlled trial was carried out with two parallel groups at 1:1 ratio. Adult awake non-intubated patients with confirmed COVID-19, non-rebreathing face mask or continuous positive airway pressure, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio ≤150 mmHg were randomly assigned to the APP group or control group. The control group was subjected to conventional positioning interventions. Outcome measures were PaO2 /FiO2 ratio, ROX index, PaO2 , PaCO2 , SaO2 , respiratory rate, blood pressure, and shock index. These parameters were recorded immediately before positioning, 10 min after patient positioning, and 1 h after patient positioning.ResultsOf 115 patients assessed for eligibility, 82 were randomized to the APP group or control group (41 patients in each group). The use of APP for non-intubated patients with COVID-19 resulted in statistically significant improvements in oxygenation parameters, that is, SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 , at the three study time points (p = .000, .007, .000, .011, and .000 respectively). The SpO2 was increased to 92.15 ± 2.735 mmHg for the APP group versus 88.17 ± 4.847 for the control group after 1 h of patients' positioning. The PaO2 /FiO2 ratio increased in the APP group before proning compared with 1 h after proning (79.95 ± 22.508 vs. 98.91 ± 34.44) respectively. APP improved the SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 values for the APP group, representing an increase of 5.85%, 23.71%, 30.79%, 22.59%, and 5.26%, respectively.ConclusionAwake proning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 showed marked improvement in oxygenation and physiological parameters.Relevance to clinical practiceThis study provides evidence for critical care nurses to implement APP in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 to improve oxygenation and physiological parameters, as it was tolerated by most of the patients without serious adverse events.
| S-EPMC9538049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsA 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.InterpretationIn 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.FundingOpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
| S-EPMC8926412 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7366175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The awake prone position (AP) strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a safe, simple, and cost-effective technique used to improve hypoxemia. We aimed to evaluate intubation and mortality risk in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who underwent AP during hospitalisation.In this retrospective, multicentre observational study conducted between May 1 and June 12, 2020 in 27 hospitals in Mexico and Ecuador, non-intubated patients with COVID-19 managed with AP or supine positioning were included to evaluate intubation and mortality risk through logistic regression models; multivariable and centre adjustment, propensity score analyses, and E-values were calculated to limit confounding. This study was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04407468827 non-intubated patients with COVID-19 in the AP (n=505) and supine (n=322) groups were included for analysis. Less patients in the AP group required endotracheal intubation (23.6% versus 40.4%) or died (20% versus 37.9%). AP was a protective factor for intubation even after multivariable adjustment (OR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.28-0.56, p<0.0001, E-value=2.01), which prevailed after propensity score analysis (OR=0.32, 95%CI: 0.21-0.49, p<0.0001, E-value=2.21), and mortality (adjusted OR=0.38, 95%CI: 0.25-0.57, p<0.0001, E-value=1.98). The main variables associated with intubation amongst AP patients were increasing age, lower baseline SpO2/FiO2, and management with a non-rebreather mask.AP in hospitalised non-intubated patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of intubation and mortality.
| S-EPMC8576803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLUS is a validated tool for the management of COVID-19 pneumonia. Chair positioning (CP) may have beneficial effects on oxygenation and lung aeration, and may be an easier alternative to PP. This study assessed the effects of a CP session on oxygenation and lung aeration (LA) changes in non-intubated COVID-19 patients.MethodsA retrospective multicenter study was conducted in an ICU. We analyzed data from LUS exams and SpO2:FiO2 performed before/after a CP session in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. Patients were divided into groups of responders or non-responders in terms of oxygenation or LA.ResultsThirty-three patients were included in the study; fourteen (44%) were oxygenation non-responders and eighteen (56%) were oxygenation responders, while thirteen (40.6%) and nineteen (59.4%) patients were classified as LA non-responders and responders, respectively. Changes in oxygenation and LA before/after a CP session were not correlated (r = -0.19, p = 0.3, 95% CI: -0.5-0.17). The reaeration scores did not differ between oxygenation responders and non-responders (1 (-0.75-3.75) vs. 4 (-1-6), p = 0.41). The LUS score was significantly correlated with SpO2:FiO2 before a CP session (r = 0.37, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03-0.64) but not after (r = 0.17, p = 0.35, 95% CI: -0.19-0.50).ConclusionA CP session was associated with improved oxygenation and LA in more than half of the non-intubated COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9573720 | biostudies-literature