Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Prone Position: A Good Option for Patients With COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ludwin K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7302098 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Prone Position: A Good Option for Patients With COVID-19.
Ludwin Kobi K Szarpak Lukasz L Ruetzler Kurt K Smereka Jacek J Böttiger Bernd W BW Jaguszewski Milosz M Filipiak Krzysztof Jerzy KJ
Anesthesia and analgesia 20200901 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 brought to the fore prone positioning as treatment for patients with acute respiratory failure. With the increasing number of patients in prone position, both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated, cardiac arrest in this position is more likely to occur. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position ('reverse CPR') and knowledge or research gaps to be further evaluated. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on 10th May 2020 in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nfuh9).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) for simulation, pre-clinical and clinical studies on reverse CPR until 31st May 2020.ResultsWe included 1 study on manikins, 31 case reports (29 during surgery requiring prone position) and 2 nonrandomized studies describing reverse CPR. No studies were found regarding reverse CPR in patients with COVID-19.ConclusionsEven if the algorithms provided by the guidelines on basic and advanced life support remain valid in cardiac arrest in prone position, differences exist in the methods of performing CPR. There is no clear evidence of superiority in terms of effectiveness of reverse compared to supine CPR in patients with cardiac arrest occurring in prone position. The quality of evidence is low and knowledge gaps (e.g. protocols, training of healthcare personnel, devices for skill acquisition) should be fulfilled by further research. Meanwhile, a case-by-case evaluation of patient and setting characteristics should guide the decision on how to start CPR in such cases.
| S-EPMC7481259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo perform a systematic review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or defibrillation in the prone position compared to turning the patient supine prior to starting CPR and/or defibrillation.MethodsThe search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, and medRxiv on December 9, 2020. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest while in the prone position. The outcomes included arterial blood pressure and end-tidal capnography during CPR, time to start CPR and defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, survival and survival with favorable neurologic outcome to discharge, 30 days or longer. ROBINS-I was performed to assess risk of bias for observational studies.ResultsThe systematic review identified 29 case reports (32 individual cases), two prospective observational studies, and two simulation studies. The observational studies enrolled 17 patients who were declared dead in the supine position and reported higher mean systolic blood pressure from CPR in prone position (72 mmHg vs 48 mmHg, p < 0.005; 79 ± 20 mmHg vs 55 ± 20 mmHg, p = 0.028). One simulation study reported a faster time to defibrillation in the prone position. Return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days were reported in adult and paediatric case reports. Critical risk of bias limited our ability to perform pooled analyses.ConclusionsWe identified a limited number of observational studies and case reports comparing prone versus supine CPR and/or defibrillation. Prone CPR may be a reasonable option if immediate supination is difficult or poses unacceptable risks to the patient.
| S-EPMC8654624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify and summarize the available science on prone resuscitation. To determine the value of undertaking a systematic review on this topic; and to identify knowledge gaps to aid future research, education and guidelines.MethodsThis review was guided by specific methodological framework and reporting items (PRISMA-ScR). We included studies, cases and grey literature regarding prone position and CPR/cardiac arrest. The databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Google Scholar. Expanded grey literature searching included internet search engine, targeted websites and social media.ResultsOf 453 identified studies, 24 (5%) studies met our inclusion criteria. There were four prone resuscitation-relevant studies examining: blood and tidal volumes generated by prone compressions; prone compression quality metrics on a manikin; and chest computed tomography scans for compression landmarking. Twenty case reports/series described the resuscitation of 25 prone patients. Prone compression quality was assessed by invasive blood pressure monitoring, exhaled carbon dioxide and pulse palpation. Recommended compression location was zero-to-two vertebral segments below the scapulae. Twenty of 25 cases (80%) survived prone resuscitation, although few cases reported long term outcome (neurological status at hospital discharge). Seven cases described full neurological recovery.ConclusionThis scoping review did not identify sufficient evidence to justify a systematic review or modified resuscitation guidelines. It remains reasonable to initiate resuscitation in the prone position if turning the patient supine would lead to delays or risk to providers or patients. Prone resuscitation quality can be judged using end-tidal CO2, and arterial pressure tracing, with patients turned supine if insufficient.
| S-EPMC7373011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prone position (PP) is increasingly used in mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. However, studies investigating the influence of the PP are currently lacking in these patients. This is the first study to investigate the influence of the PP on the oxygenation and decarboxylation in COVID-19 patients. A prospective bicentric study design was used, and in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, PP was indicated from a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratio of <200. Patients were left prone for 16 h each. Pressure levels, FIO2, were adjusted to ensure a PaO2 greater than 60 mmHg. Blood gas analyses were performed before (baseline 0.5 h), during (1/2/5.5/9.5/13 h), and after being in the PP (1 h), the circulatory/ventilation parameters were continuously monitored, and lung compliance (LC) was roughly calculated. Responders were defined compared to the baseline value (PaO2/FIO2 ratio increase of ≥15%; partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) decrease of ≥2%). 13 patients were included and 36 PP sessions were conducted. Overall, PaO2/FIO2 increased significantly in the PP (p < 0.001). Most PaO2/FIO2 responders (29/36 PP sessions, 77%) were identified 9.5 h after turning prone (14% slow responders), while most PaCO2 responders (15/36 PP sessions, 42%) were identified 13 h after turning prone. A subgroup of patients (interval intubation to PP ≥3 days) showed less PaO2/FIO2 responders (16% vs. 77%). An increase in PaCO2 and minute ventilation in the PP showed a significant negative correlation (p < 0.001). LC (median before the PP = 38 mL/cm H2O; two patients with LC >80 mL/cm H2O) showed a significant positive correlation with the 28 day survival of patients (p = 0.01). The PP significantly improves oxygenation in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The data suggest that they also benefit most from an early PP. A decrease in minute ventilation may result in fewer PaCO2 responders. LC may be a predictive outcome parameter in COVID-19 patients. Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7959453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThis study aimed to compare the quality of compressions in supine cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and prone CPR by performing chest compressions on a manikin. Evaluating the effect of prone CPR using different hand and body position on the quality of manual chest compressions and fatigue of participants.MethodsAfter completing 2 min of chest compression in the supine position (Supine Group), 25 participants randomly performed three sets of 2-minutes chest compressions on a prone position manikin. Stand + hands overlapped Group: participants stood beside the patient bed with their hands overlapped and placed on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae, Straddle + hands separated Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands placed above the scapulae on both sides at the mid-chest level, and Straddle + hands overlapped Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands overlapping on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae. Subsequently, the quality of chest compressions and participants fatigue were assessed.ResultsChest compression depth ratio and mean chest compression depth (MCCD) were worse in the three prone CPR groups (Stand + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,15.6) %, 39.8 ± 1.3 mm; Straddle + hands separated Group: 1.4(0.0,11.7) %, 42.4 ± 1.2 mm; Straddle + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,9.2) %, 40.9 ± 1.2 mm) than in the Supine group (87.1(68.1,94.0) %; p < 0.001, 52.4 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.001). In the three prone CPR groups, Straddle + hands separated Group had the greatest MCCD, lowest changes in heart rate (p = 0.018) and lowest changes in RPE scores (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the four groups in terms of mean chest compression rate, accurate chest compression rate ratio, or correct recoil ratio.ConclusionThis simulation-based study showed that the quality of chest compressions was worse in the prone position than in the supine position. When prone chest compressions were performed using different hand and body position, prone CPR performed by a participant straddling a hospital bed with hands placed above the scapula on either side at the mid-chest level provided higher-quality chest compressions and lower rescuer fatigue.
| S-EPMC11490737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesProne positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are both useful interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Combining the two therapies is feasible and safe, but the effectiveness is not known. Our objective was to evaluate the potential survival benefit of prone positioning in venovenous ECMO patients cannulated for COVID-19-related ARDS.DesignRetrospective analysis of a multicenter cohort.PatientsPatients on venovenous ECMO who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or with a diagnosis on chest CT were eligible.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAll patients on venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in whom prone position status while on ECMO and in-hospital mortality were known were included. Of 647 patients in 41 centers, 517 were included. Median age was 55 (47-61), 78% were male and 95% were proned before cannulation. After cannulation, 364 patients (70%) were proned and 153 (30%) remained in the supine position for the whole ECMO run. There were 194 (53%) and 92 (60%) deaths in the prone and the supine groups, respectively. Prone position on ECMO was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.49 [0.29-0.84]; p = 0.010). In 153 propensity score-matched pairs, mortality rate was 49.7% in the prone position group versus 60.1% in the supine position group (p = 0.085). Considering only patients alive at decannulation, propensity-matched proned patients had a significantly lower mortality rate (22.4% vs 37.8%; p = 0.029) than nonproned patients.ConclusionsProne position may be beneficial in patients supported by venovenous ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS but more data are needed to draw definitive conclusions.
| S-EPMC9749944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProne position is known to improve mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be determined. In this review, we describe the mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise the current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients, and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic.MethodsFor our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020, and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive or mechanical ventilation and reported the use of prone position. The full text of eligible articles was reviewed, and data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted.ResultsWe found seven studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance and improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked a description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation).ConclusionsBased on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation.
| S-EPMC7575418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rapid changes in the viral genome allow viruses to evade threats posed by the host immune response or antiviral drugs, and can lead to viral persistence in the host cells. RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) is an essential enzyme in RNA viruses, which is involved in RNA synthesis through the formation of phosphodiester bonds. Therefore, in RNA viral infections such as SARS-CoV-2, RdRp could be a crucial therapeutic target. The present review discusses the promising application of RdRp inhibitors, previously approved or currently being tested in human clinical trials, in the treatment of RNA virus infections. Nucleoside inhibitors (NIs) bind to the active site of RdRp, while nonnucleoside inhibitors (NNIs) bind to allosteric sites. Given the absence of highly effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, the discovery of an efficient treatment for this pandemic is an urgent concern for researchers around the world. We review the evidence for molnupiravir (MK-4482, EIDD-2801), an antiviral drug originally designed for Alphavirus infections, as a potential preventive and therapeutic agent for the management of COVID-19. At the beginning of this pandemic, molnupiravir was in preclinical development for seasonal influenza. When COVID-19 spread dramatically, the timeline for development was accelerated to focus on the treatment of this pandemic. Real time consultation with regulators took place to expedite this program. We summarize the therapeutic potential of RdRp inhibitors, and highlight molnupiravir as a new small molecule drug for COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8654603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe main manifestation of COVID-19 pneumonia is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which in some cases can be more severe, requiring Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) to ensure hemostasis. Despite support from Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, some patients may remain hypoxemic. One possible therapeutic procedure for these patients is the application of the prone position (PP).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of VV-ECMO on arterial oxygenation and compliance of the respiratory system in mechanically ventilated patients with refractory hypoxemia. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of prone position for ECMO.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the electronic records of all 23 COVID-19 patients on ECMO who were placed for the first time in prone position with an average duration of 16 h. Patient characteristics, pre-ECMO characteristics, changes in ventilator/ECMO settings and blood gas analysis before and after PP.ResultsA total of 23 position changes to prone position were performed. Oxygenation and respiratory compliance improved 16 h after adoption of prone position without any accidents during PP.ConclusionsThe use of prone position during Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation demonstrated an improvement in oxygenation as well as lung compliance. It is a safe and reliable technique.
| S-EPMC8403004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewProne position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing ('awake prone'). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS.Recent findingsA literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting.SummaryThe final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.
| S-EPMC8711313 | biostudies-literature