Dataset Information

Prone Positioning on Non-intubated COVID 19 Patients in Hypoxic Respiratory Distress: Single Site Retrospective Health Records Review

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In March and April 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic, site clinical practice guidelines were implemented for prone positioning of awake, alert, spontaneously breathing suspected COVID-19 patients in hypoxic respiratory distress. The purpose of this pandemic disaster practice improvement project was to measure changes in pulse oximetry associated with prone positioning on awake, alert, spontaneously breathing non-intubated adult acute respiratory distress, or ARDS, patients with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of ED COVID-19 positive patients from 3/30/2020 to 4/30/2020 was conducted for patients with a room air pulse oximetry < 90% and a pre-prone position pulse oximetry ? 94% who tolerated prone positioning for at least 30 minutes. The primary outcome was change in pulse oximetry associated with prone positioning, measured on room air, with supplemental oxygen, and approximately 30 minutes after initiating prone positioning. Median differences were compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

Of the 440 COVID-19 patients, 31 met inclusion criteria. Median pulse oximetry increased as 83% (IQR= 75%-86%) on room air, 90% (IQR=89%-93%) with supplemental oxygen, and 96% (IQR=94%-98%) with prone positioning (x.xx, p<.001). 45% (N=14) were intubated during their hospital stay and 26% (N=8) of the included patients died.

Conclusion

In awake, alert, and spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19, an initially low pulse oximetry reading improved with prone positioning. Future studies are needed to determine the association of prone positioning with subsequent endotracheal intubation and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Wendt C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7762706 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown.ObjectivesTo compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic.Design setting and participantsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020-2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018-2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency.ResultsProning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7-57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained.Conclusions and relevanceWe observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.

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.