Dataset Information

Evaluation of PEEP and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In face of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, best practice for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is intensely debated. Specifically, the rationale for high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS has been questioned.

Methods

The first 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure transferred to a single ICU were assessed. Eight were excluded: five were not invasively ventilated and three received veno-venous ECMO support. The remaining 15 were assessed over the first 15 days of mechanical ventilation. Best PEEP was defined by maximal oxygenation and was determined by structured decremental PEEP trials comprising the monitoring of oxygenation, airway pressures and trans-pulmonary pressures. In nine patients the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation was investigated. Additionally, the effects of high PEEP and prone positioning on pulmonary opacities in serial chest x-rays were determined by applying a semiquantitative scoring-system. This investigation is part of the prospective observational PA-COVID-19 study.

Findings

Patients responded to initiation of invasive high PEEP ventilation with markedly improved oxygenation, which was accompanied by reduced pulmonary opacities within 6 h of mechanical ventilation. Decremental PEEP trials confirmed the need for high PEEP (17.9 (SD ± 3.9) mbar) for optimal oxygenation, while driving pressures remained low. Prone positioning substantially increased oxygenation (p<0.01).

Interpretation

In early COVID-19 ARDS, substantial PEEP values were required for optimizing oxygenation. Pulmonary opacities resolved during mechanical ventilation with high PEEP suggesting recruitment of lung volume.

Funding

German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

SUBMITTER: Mittermaier M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7547915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many more patients were turned prone than before, resulting in a considerable increase in workload. Whether extending duration of prone position may be beneficial has received little attention. We report here benefits and detriments of a strategy of extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsA eetrospective, monocentric, study was performed on intensive care unit patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who required tracheal intubation and who have been treated with at least one session of prone position of duration greater or equal to 24 h. When prone positioning sessions were initiated, patients were kept prone for a period that covered two nights. Data regarding the incidence of pressure injury and ventilation parameters were collected retrospectively on medical and nurse files of charts. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pressure injury of stage ≥ II during the ICU stay.ResultsFor the 81 patients included, the median duration of prone positioning sessions was 39 h [interquartile range (IQR) 34-42]. The cumulated incidence of stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26% [95% CI 17-37] and 2.5% [95% CI 0.3-8.8] for stages III/IV pressure injuries. Patients were submitted to a median of 2 sessions [IQR 1-4] and for 213 (94%) prone positioning sessions, patients were turned over to supine position during daytime, i.e., between 9 AM and 6 PM. This increased duration was associated with additional increase in oxygenation after 16 h with the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increasing from 150 mmHg [IQR 121-196] at H+ 16 to 162 mmHg [IQR 124-221] before being turned back to supine (p = 0.017).ConclusionIn patients with extended duration of prone position up to 39 h, cumulative incidence for stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26%, with 25%, 2.5%, and 0% for stage II, III, and IV, respectively. Oxygenation continued to increase significantly beyond the standard 16-h duration. Our results may have significant impact on intensive care unit staffing and patients' respiratory conditions.Trial registrationInstitutional review board 00006477 of HUPNVS, Université Paris Cité, APHP, with the reference: CER-2021-102, obtained on October 11th 2021. Registered at Clinicaltrials (NCT05124197).

Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome.ResultsWhen compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

Project description:BackgroundProne positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes.Research questionHow have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use?Study design and methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning.ResultsForty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs.InterpretationProne positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.