Conscious Proning: An Introduction of a Proning Protocol for Nonintubated, Awake, Hypoxic Emergency Department COVID-19 Patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jiang LG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7283629 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveProning has been shown to improve oxygenation and mortality in certain populations of intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Small observational analyses of COVID-19 patients suggest awake proning may lead to clinical improvement. Data on safety and efficacy is lacking. We sought to describe the effect of proning on oxygenation in nonintubated COVID-19 patients. We also evaluated feasibility, safety, and other physiological and clinical outcomes associated with this intervention.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of nonintubated patients with COVID-19 who underwent proning per an Emergency Department (ED) clinical protocol. Patients with mild to moderate respiratory distress were included. We calculated change in oxygenation by comparing the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SpO2:FiO2) during the five minutes prior to proning and first 30 min of proning. We also captured data on respiratory rate, duration of proning, need for intubation, intensive care unit admission, survival to discharge.ResultsFifty-two patients were enrolled. Thirty were excluded for not meeting protocol inclusion criteria or missing baseline oxygenation data, leaving 22 for analysis. The SpO2:FiO2 ratio increased by a median of 5 (IQR: 0-15) in the post-proning period compared to the pre-proning period (median: 298 (IQR: 263-352) vs 295 (IQR: 276-350), p = 0.01). Respiratory rate did not change significantly between time periods. No immediate adverse events occurred during proning. Five patients (23%) were intubated within 48 h of admission.ConclusionEarly, awake proning may be feasible in select COVID-19 patients and was associated with improved oxygenation.
| S-EPMC7713606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning (PP) has been used to avoid intubations in hypoxic COVID-19 patients, but there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy. Moreover, clinicians have little information to identify patients at high risk of intubation despite awake PP. We sought to assess the intubation rate among patients treated with awake PP in our Emergency Department (ED) and identify predictors of need for intubation.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted for known or suspected COVID-19 who were treated with awake PP in the ED. We excluded patients intubated in the ED. Our primary outcome was prevalence of intubation during initial hospitalization. Other outcomes were intubation within 48 h of admission and mortality. We performed classification and regression tree analysis to identify the variables most likely to predict the need for intubation.ResultsWe included 97 patients; 44% required intubation and 21% were intubated within 48 h of admission. Respiratory oxygenation (ROX) index and P/F (partial pressure of oxygen / fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio measured 24 h after admission were the variables most likely to predict need for intubation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82).ConclusionsAmong COVID-19 patients treated with awake PP in the ED prior to admission, ROX index and P/F ratio, particularly 24 h after admission, may be useful tools in identifying patients at high risk of intubation.
| S-EPMC8188753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prone positioning has been shown to improve oxygenation for decades. However, proning in awake, non-intubated patients gained acceptance in the last few months since the onset of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. To overcome the shortage of ventilators, to decrease the overwhelming burden on intensive care beds in the pandemic era, and also as invasive ventilation was associated with poor outcomes, proning of awake, spontaneously breathing patients gathered momentum. Being an intervention with minimal risk and requiring minimum assistance, it is now a globally accepted therapy to improve oxygenation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients. We thus reviewed the literature of awake proning in non-intubated patients and described a safe protocol to practice the same. How to cite this article: Sodhi K, Chanchalani G. Awake Proning: Current Evidence and Practical Considerations. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(12):1236-1241.
| S-EPMC7775938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated.ResultsA total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different.ConclusionsProne positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.
| S-EPMC7983422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning has been recommended as an adjunctive measure in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains uncertain as to how long this should be implemented, what variables to follow and who would be the ideal candidates for this adjunctive therapy.MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients admitted from April to August 2020 within our institution with multifocal pneumonia and hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who underwent awake-proning for at least 3 hours was conducted.ResultsImprovement in respiratory parameters including ROX (SpO2/Fio2/ Respiratory Rate) indices and inflammatory markers within 4 days of institution of awake proning predicted a higher chance for success of this strategy in preventing need for mechanical ventilation. Moreover, benefits of awake proning were limited to patients with mild to moderate ARDS.ConclusionsAwake prone positioning can be safely performed with improvement in oxygenation. However, its institution may be beneficial only in patients with mild to moderate ARDS and requires careful evaluation of respiratory parameters and serum inflammatory markers to avoid a delay in endotracheal intubation and consequent increase in mortality rates.
| S-EPMC8018785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is uncertain whether awake prone positioning can prevent intubation for invasive ventilation in spontaneous breathing critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Awake prone positioning could benefit these patients for various reasons, including a reduction in direct harm to lung tissue, and prevention of tracheal intubation-related complications.Design and methodsThe PRONELIFE study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Consecutive patients admitted to participating ICUs are randomly assigned to standard care with awake prone positioning, versus standard care without awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint is a composite of tracheal intubation and all-cause mortality in the first 14 days after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include time to tracheal intubation and effects of awake prone positioning on oxygenation parameters, dyspnea sensation, and complications. Other endpoints are the number of days free from ventilation and alive at 28 days, total duration of use of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU and hospital, and at 28, 60, and 90 days. We will also collect data regarding the tolerance of prone positioning.DiscussionThe PRONELIFE study is among the first randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rate in ICU patients with acute hypoxemic failure from any cause. The PRONELIFE study is sufficiently sized to determine the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation for invasive ventilation-patients are eligible in case of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without restrictions regarding etiology. The PRONELIFE study is a pragmatic trial in which blinding is impossible-however, as around 35 ICUs worldwide will participate in this study, its findings will be highly generalizable. The findings of the PRONELIFE study have the potential to change clinical management of patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN11536318 . Registered on 17 September 2021. The PRONELIFE study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with reference number NCT04142736 (October, 2019).
| S-EPMC8744392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Around 42,000 children suffer from severe sepsis each year in the US alone, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and billion dollar expenditures in the US healthcare system. Sepsis recognition is a clinical challenge in children. Biomarkers are needed to tailor appropriate antimicrobial therapies and improve risk stratification. The goal of this study was to determine if gene expression profiles from peripheral blood were associated with pathogen type and sepsis severity in children treated for suspected sepsis.
2020-01-01 | GSE119217 | GEO
Project description:Chest pain is a common clinical condition in the emergency department. A high sensitive (hs) troponin test assay may help to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome earlier compared to conventional tests but also entails the risk of a high proportion of positive test results in patients without cardiac disease. We assessed the impact of the introduction of the hs-troponin test in clinical practice in an emergency department. We compared December 1, 2009 until November 30, 2010 (standard test period) to December 1, 2010 - the date of the introduction of the hs-troponin assay - until December 31, 2011 (hs troponin test period) of patients presenting with chest pain to one of the ten largest hospitals in Switzerland. We identified electronic health records using the following ICD-10 codes: R06.4 (hyperventilation), R07.1 (chest pain when breathing), R07.2 (precordial pain), R07.3 (other chest pain), and R07.4 (chest pain not specified), I20 (angina pectoris), I21 (acute MI), I22 (recurrent MI), I23 (complications after acute MI), and I24 (other acute ischemic heart disease). Included were all medical records of adult patients (≥18 years) presenting to the ED with chest pain and with ≥1 troponin test. Excluded were records without troponin test, pregnancy, trauma patients/life-threatening conditions, malignant disease, current fracture, renal replacement therapy/severe kidney failure (creatinine clearance <30ml/min/1.73m2), patients with disability, or patients disagreeing that their data will be used for scientific purposes. Two researchers screened all records for in-/exclusion. The first presentation for chest pain to the ED and all presentations within the following three months extracted. Presentations after >3 months due to chest pain were defined as a new index visit of a second episode. The extraction form with predefined variables was pilot-tested in 20 records. Additional diagnostic tests were ECG, treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, echocardiography, chest X-ray, computer tomography (CT) of the chest or abdomen, sonography of the abdomen or pleura, gastroscopy, and lung function tests. We compared the number of non-invasive / invasive cardiac diagnostic tests in troponin positive and negative patients and the number of diagnostic tests after the exclusion of patients with STEMI diagnosis. Non-invasive / invasive cardiac tests included treadmill test, coronary angiography, MIBI scintigraphy, and echocardiography. We calculated average monthly tests per patient and compared mean tests per patient between groups. We used a t-test to quantify the evidence for differential number of diagnostic tests per patient in each period. Between-group differences were estimated with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed with the statistical software R for windows [1]. Interpretation of this data can be found in a research article titled Impact of the introduction of high-sensitive troponin assay on the evaluation of chest pain patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study [2]).
| S-EPMC7160515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntermittent Prone Positioning (IPP) for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) decreases mortality. We present a program for IPP using expedient materials for settings of significant limitations in both overwhelmed established ICUs and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) treating ARDS due to COVID-19 caused by SARS CoV-2.MethodsThe proning program evolved based on the principles of High Reliability Organizations (HROs) and Crew Resource Management (CRM). Patients with severe ARDS [PaO2:FiO2 ratio (PFr) ≤ 150 on FiO2 ≥ 0.6 and PEEP ≥ 5 cm H2O] received IPP. Patients were placed prone 16 h each day. When PFr was ≥ 200 for > 8 h supine IPP ceased. IPP used available materials without requiring additional work from the bedside team. Changes in PFr, PaCO2, and the SaO2:FiO2 ratio (SaFr) positionally were evaluated using t-statistics and ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.017).ResultsBetween 14APR2020 and 09MAY2020, at the peak of deaths in New York, there were 202 IPPs in 29 patients. Patients were 58.5 ± 1.7 years of age (37, 73), 76% male and had a body mass index (BMI) of 27.8 ± 0.8 (21, 38). Pressor agents were used in 76% and 17% received dialysis. The PFr prior to IPP was 107.5 ± 5.6 and 1 h after IPP was 155.7 ± 11.2 (p < 0.001 compared to pre-prone). PFr after the patients were placed supine was 131.5 ± 9.1 (p = 0.02). Pre-prone PaCO2 was 60.0 ± 2.5 and the 1-h post-prone PaCO2 was 67.2 ± 3.1 (p = 0.02). Supine PaCO2 after IPP was 60.4 ± 3.4 (p = 0.90). The SaFr prior to IPP was 121.3 ± 4.2 and the SaFr 1 h after positioning was 131.5 ± 5.1 (p = 0.03). The post-IPP supine SaFr was 139.7 ± 5.9 (p < 0.001). With ANOVA and Bonferroni correction there were statistically significant changes in PFr (p < 0.001) and SaFr (p < 0.001) and no significant changes in PaCO2 over the four time points measured. Using regression coefficients, the SaFrs predicted by PFrs of 150 and 200 at baseline are 133.2 and 147.3, respectively.ConclusionsAn IPP program for patients with COVID-19 ARDS can be instituted rapidly, safely, and effectively during an overwhelming mass casualty scenario. This approach may be equally applicable in both traditionally austere environments in LMICs and in otherwise capable centers facing situational resource limitations.
| S-EPMC7802981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 may lead to severe disease, requiring intensive care treatment and challenging the capacity of health care systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of commonly used scoring systems for sepsis and pneumonia to predict severe COVID-19 in the emergency department.MethodsProspective, observational, single centre study in a secondary/tertiary care hospital in Oslo, Norway. Patients were assessed upon hospital admission using the following scoring systems; quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65 and Pneumonia Severity index (PSI). The ratio of arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction (P/F-ratio) was also calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) for each scoring system was calculated, along with sensitivity and specificity for the most commonly used cut-offs. Severe disease was defined as death or treatment in ICU within 14 days.Results38 of 175 study participants developed severe disease, 13 (7%) died and 29 (17%) had a stay at an intensive care unit (ICU). NEWS2 displayed an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.88), CURB-65 0.75 (0.65-0.84), PSI 0.75 (0.65-0.84), SIRS 0.70 (0.61-0.80) and qSOFA 0.70 (0.61-0.79). NEWS2 was significantly better than SIRS and qSOFA in predicating severe disease, and with a cut-off of5 points, had a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 60%, respectively.ConclusionNEWS2 predicted severe COVID-19 disease more accurately than SIRS and qSOFA, but not significantly better than CURB65 and PSI. NEWS2 may be a useful screening tool in evaluating COVID-19 patients during hospital admission.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04345536. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345536).
| S-EPMC7577659 | biostudies-literature