Dataset Information

Predictive factors for success of awake proning in hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Awake 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Improvement 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.

Conclusions

Awake 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.

SUBMITTER: Cherian SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8018785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsFifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔPES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure-time product per minute (sPTPES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (VT), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (VT/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography.ResultsCompared to supine position, prone position increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76-129] vs. 74 [69-93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22-26] vs. 27 [26-30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔPES (12 cmH2O [11-13] vs. 9 [8-12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTPES (131 [75-154] cmH2O s min-1 vs. 105 [81-129], p > 0.99) and ΔPL (9 [7-11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5-9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units-3 [4-11] vs. 6 [4-9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32-61] vs. 0.40 [0.37-0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414-8547] vs. 1456 [959-2420], p = 0.002) and promoted VT distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting VT size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16-0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30-0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7-57] of VT in prone vs. 31% [14-55] in supine position, p > 0.99).ConclusionsProne position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes VT distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting VT size, ΔPL, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔPES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔPES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔPES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.

Project description:Background Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can result in Coronavirus Disease–19 (COVID-19) [1, 2]. While the majority of patients are asymptomatic or have mild disease [3], approximately 14% develop more severe disease including hypoxemic respiratory failure and/or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) [3]. Prone positioning is a life-saving intervention for mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe ARDS [4]. Based on this, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend these patients be considered for a trial of prone positioning [5]. Recently the use of prone positioning in awake non-intubated COVID-19 patients has been recommended by several notable organizations with the goal of preventing intubation and potentially improving patient-oriented outcomes [6, 7]. In contrast to prone positioning for intubated mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS, there have been no randomized control trials examining the role of awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. To further explore this question we used rapid review methodology (Tricco et al., 2015 [8]) to quickly identify and synthesize studies examining the effect of awake prone positioning on patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure (including those with ARDS and/or COVID-19). Methods We have elected to use “rapid review” methodology rather than “systematic review” methodology primarily due to the speed and efficiency through which we are able to conduct this review, as previously described [8]. In the absence of an EQUATOR guidance document, we used PRISMA guidelines where applicable [9]. Studies were included if they met the following criteria 1) population – non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, 2) intervention – prone positioning, 3) comparator – usual management, 4) outcomes – intubation, survival, change in respiratory parameters, adverse events, 5) setting – hospitalized patients 6) study design – observational or randomized control trial. Studies were not limited to ARDS or COVID-19 patients. The search strategy was developed by a critical care physician (KP), a critical care epidemiologist (KF) and a medical librarian (NL) (See search details in Online Supplement). Briefly, the search strategy involved combinations of keywords and subject headings relating to the concepts of, 1) SARS-Cov-2 or COVID-19 or coronavirus, 2) awake prone positioning, and 3) hypoxemic respiratory failure, including but not limited to ARDS and other potentially relevant conditions. The search was conducted on May 19, 2020 and was updated on August 7, 2020 with no restrictions on publication language or date. Databases and grey literature sources searched included: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Trip PRO, Cochrane Library, LitCOVID, WHO COVID-19 Research Database, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), medRxiv, BMJ Best Practice, Cambridge Coronavirus Free Access Collection, and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently and in duplicate (KP and JW) for selection for full text review. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer (KS). Full text review and data abstraction was conducted independently and in duplicate (KP, KS, JW). Data abstracted included study characteristics, participant demographics, and outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundTo explore the prevalence, outcome and perinatal risks of neonatal hypoxemic respiratory failure (NRF) in a survey of all livebirths from a regional network of perinatal-neonatal care during the transition period after 5-year universal health insurance implemented in China.MethodsClinical data of all neonatal respiratory morbidities in Huai'an were retrospectively collected in the regional perinatal network database of all livebirths as vital statistics in 2015. NRF was defined as hypoxemia requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and/or mechanical ventilation (MV) for at least 24 h. Mortality risks of antenatal and perinatal morbidities, major respiratory therapies and complications were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression model.ResultsThere were 788 NRF cases identified in 9.9% (7960) hospitalized, or 13.3‰ (59056) livebirths, in which 6.7% received intensive care and 93.0% critical care. The major underlying morbidities were respiratory distress syndrome (RDS, 36.4%) and pneumonia/sepsis (35.3%), treated mainly by CPAP, MV and surfactant. Significantly improved outcomes by surfactant in RDS were in patients with birthweight (BW) < 1500 g or gestational age (GA) < 32 weeks. The overall mortality rate in NRF was 18.4% whereas for those of BW < 1000 g and GA < 28 weeks, 70% and 54%, respectively. The multivariable regression analysis showed the highest odds for NRF death among meconium aspiration syndrome, congenital anomalies, BW < 1500 g and necrotizing enterocolitis, whereas born in level III hospitals, cesarean delivery, CPAP and MV were associated with markedly reduced death odds.ConclusionsThe salient findings with associated risk estimates reflected efficiency of respiratory support as critical care in a prefectural regional network infrastructure for annual livebirths in 5.6 million inhabitants. It implicated the representativeness of contemporaneous perinatal-neonatal care standard at medium to medium-high level, in one/fourth of the population of China, aiming at saving more life of very critical and preterm infants for better survival.

Project description:BackgroundAcute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are associated with high in-hospital mortality. However, in cohorts of ARDS patients from the 1990s, patients more commonly died from sepsis or multi-organ failure rather than refractory hypoxemia. Given increased attention to lung-protective ventilation and sepsis treatment in the past 25 years, we hypothesized that causes of death may be different among contemporary cohorts. These differences may provide clinicians with insight into targets for future therapeutic interventions.MethodsWe identified adult patients hospitalized at a single tertiary care center (2016-2017) with AHRF, defined as PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 while receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 12 h, who died during hospitalization. ARDS was adjudicated by multiple physicians using the Berlin definition. Separate abstractors blinded to ARDS status collected data on organ dysfunction and withdrawal of life support using a standardized tool. The primary cause of death was defined as the organ system that most directly contributed to death or withdrawal of life support.ResultsWe identified 385 decedents with AHRF, of whom 127 (33%) had ARDS. The most common primary causes of death were sepsis (26%), pulmonary dysfunction (22%), and neurologic dysfunction (19%). Multi-organ failure was present in 70% at time of death, most commonly due to sepsis (50% of all patients), and 70% were on significant respiratory support at the time of death. Only 2% of patients had insupportable oxygenation or ventilation. Eighty-five percent died following withdrawal of life support. Patients with ARDS more often had pulmonary dysfunction as the primary cause of death (28% vs 19%; p = 0.04) and were also more likely to die while requiring significant respiratory support (82% vs 64%; p < 0.01).ConclusionsIn this contemporary cohort of patients with AHRF, the most common primary causes of death were sepsis and pulmonary dysfunction, but few patients had insupportable oxygenation or ventilation. The vast majority of deaths occurred after withdrawal of life support. ARDS patients were more likely to have pulmonary dysfunction as the primary cause of death and die while requiring significant respiratory support compared to patients without ARDS.

Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.