Dataset Information

A Case-Control Study of Prone Positioning in Awake and Nonintubated Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

ABSTRACT: To determine the association between prone positioning in nonintubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality.

Design

A nested case-matched control analysis.

Setting

Three hospital sites in Bronx, NY.

Patients

Adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 1, 2020. We excluded patients with do-not-intubate orders. Cases were defined by invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. Each case was matched with two controls based on age, gender, admission date, and hospital length of stay greater than index time of matched case via risk-set sampling. The presence of nonintubated proning was identified from provider documentation.

Intervention

Nonintubated proning documented prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality for cases or prior to corresponding index time for matched controls.

Measurements and main results

We included 600 patients, 41 (6.8%) underwent nonintubated proning. Cases had lower Spo₂/Fio₂ ratios prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality compared with controls (case median, 97 [interquartile range, 90-290] vs control median, 404 [interquartile range, 296-452]). Although most providers (58.5%) documented immediate improvement in oxygenation status after initiating nonintubated proning, there was no difference in worst Spo₂/Fio₂ ratios before and after nonintubated proning in both case and control (case median Spo₂/Fio₂ ratio difference, 3 [interquartile range, -3 to 8] vs control median Spo₂/Fio₂ ratio difference, 0 [interquartile range, -3 to 50]). In the univariate analysis, patients who underwent nonintubated proning were 2.57 times more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation or experience inhospital mortality (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.17-5.64; p = 0.02). Following adjustment for patient level differences, we found no association between nonintubated proning and invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.34-2.45; p = 0.86).

Conclusions

There was no significant association with reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality after adjusting for baseline severity of illness and oxygenation status.

SUBMITTER: Nauka PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7886495 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSeveral studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.Design and settingWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.Subjects and interventionStudies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.Measurements and main resultsData on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.ConclusionsDespite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundIn the treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends prone positioning (PP) during mechanical ventilation for periods of 12-16 h/d to potentially improve oxygenation and survival. In this prospective observational study, we evaluated the ability of long PP sessions to improve oxygenation in awake intensive care unit (ICU) patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to COVID-19.MethodsThe study was approved by the ethics committee of Galicia (code No. 2020-188), and all patients provided informed consent. In this case series, awake patients with moderate or severe ARDS by COVID-19 admitted to the ICU at University Hospital of Santiago from March 21 to April 5, 2020 were prospectively analyzed. Patients were instructed to remain in PP as long as possible until the patient felt too tired to maintain that position. Light sedation was administered with dexmedetomidine. The following information was collected: number and duration of PP sessions; tissue O2 saturation (StO2) and blood gases before, during, and following a PP session; need of mechanical ventilation; duration of ICU admission; and ICU outcome. Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were fit to estimate changes from baseline with a random effect for patient.ResultsSeven patients with moderate or severe ARDS by COVID-19 were included. All patients received at least 1 PP session. A total of 16 PP sessions were performed in the 7 patients during the period study. The median duration of PP sessions was 10 hours. Dexmedetomidine was used in all PP sessions. Oxygenation increased in all 16 sessions performed in the 7 patients. The ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FIO2) significantly increased during PP (change from baseline 110 with 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 19-202) and, after PP, albeit not significantly (change from baseline 38 with 97.5% CI, -9.2 to 85) compared with previous supine position. Similarly, tissue oxygenation underwent a small improvement during PP (change from baseline 2.6% with 97.5% CI, 0.69-4.6) without significant changes after PP. Two patients required intubation. All patients were discharged from the ICU.ConclusionsWe found that PP improved oxygenation in ICU patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS. PP was relatively well tolerated in our patients and may be a simple strategy to improve oxygenation trying to reduce the number of patients in mechanical ventilation and the length of stay in the ICU, especially in COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Given perceived similarities between coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, we explored whether awake self-proning improved outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients treated in a rural medical center with limited resources during a significant local coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak.DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data.SettingSingle-center rural community-based medical center in Grand Island, NE.PatientsOne hundred five nonintubated, coronavirus disease-infected patients.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAfter patients were educated on the benefits of awake self-proning, compliance was voluntary. The primary outcome was need for intubation during the hospital stay; secondary outcomes included serial peripheral capillary oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry to the Fio2 ratios, in-hospital mortality, and discharge disposition. Of 105 nonintubated, coronavirus disease-infected patients, 40 tolerated awake self-proning. Patients who were able to prone were younger and had lower disease severity. The risk of intubation was lower in proned patients after adjusting for disease severity using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-0.96; p = 0.043) or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.91; p = 0.034). No prone patient died compared with 24.6% of patients who were not prone (p < 0.001; number needed to treat = 5; 95% CI, 3-8). The probability of being discharged alive and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry to the Fio2 ratios were statistically similar for both groups.ConclusionsAwake self-proning was associated with lower mortality and intubation rates in coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients. Prone positioning appears to be a safe and inexpensive strategy to improve outcomes and spare limited resources. Prospective efforts are needed to better delineate the effect of awake proning on oxygenation and to improve patients' ability to tolerate this intervention.

Project description:ObjectivesThe study investigated the impact of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory failure on the patient outcome.DesignAn observational study of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients. We used a multistate survival model to compare the outcomes of patients treated with or without prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which incorporates the dynamic nature of prone positioning and adjusts for potential confounders.SettingSeventy-two international institutions participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium international registry.PatientsCoronavirus disease 2019 patients who were supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period.InterventionNone.Measurements and main resultsThere were 232 coronavirus disease 2019 patients at 72 participating institutions who were supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period from February 16, 2020, to October 31, 2020. Proning was used in 176 patients (76%) before initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and in 67 patients (29%) during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survival to hospital discharge was 33% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation prone group versus 22% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation supine group. Prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.68).ConclusionsOur study highlights that prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for refractory coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of the study, a randomized controlled trial of prone positioning on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is needed to confirm these findings.

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).

Project description:ObjectivesTherapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure.DesignData were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up.SettingICUs at 68 U.S. sites.PatientsCritically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97).ConclusionsIn-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.

Project description:ImportanceAwake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020.InterventionsPatients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5.ResultsA total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.