Dataset Information

Effect of prone position on respiratory parameters, intubation and death rate in COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Prone position (PP) is known to improve oxygenation and reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of PP on respiratory parameters and outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar were searched up to 1st January 2021. Twenty-eight studies were included. The Cochran's Q-test and I² statistic were assessed heterogeneity, the random-effects model was estimated the pooled mean difference (PMD), and a meta-regression method has utilized the factors affecting heterogeneity between studies. PMD with 95% confidence interval (CI) of PaO₂/FIO₂ Ratio in before-after design, quasi-experimental design and in overall was 55.74, 56.38, and 56.20 mmHg. These values for Spo₂ (Sao₂) were 3.38, 17.03, and 7.58. PP in COVID-19 patients lead to significantly decrease of the Paco₂ (PMD: - 8.69; 95% CI - 14.69 to - 2.69 mmHg) but significantly increase the PaO₂ (PMD: 37.74; 95% CI 7.16-68.33 mmHg). PP has no significant effect on the respiratory rate. Based on meta-regression, the study design has a significant effect on the heterogeneity of Spo₂ (Sao₂) (Coefficient: 12.80; p < 0.001). No significant associations were observed for other respiratory parameters with sample size and study design. The pooled estimate for death rate and intubation rates were 19.03 (8.19-32.61) and 30.68 (21.39-40.75). The prone positioning was associated with improved oxygenation parameters and reduced mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 related respiratory failure.

SUBMITTER: Behesht Aeen F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8277853 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMechanical ventilation in the prone position is used to improve oxygenation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We sought to determine the effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on mortality, oxygenation, duration of ventilation and adverse events in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsIn this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Science Citation Index Expanded for articles published from database inception to February 2008. We also conducted extensive manual searches and contacted experts. We extracted physiologic data and clinically relevant outcomes.ResultsThirteen trials that enrolled a total of 1559 patients met our inclusion criteria. Overall methodologic quality was good. In 10 of the trials (n = 1486) reporting this outcome, we found that prone positioning did not reduce mortality among hypoxemic patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.09; p = 0.52). The lack of effect of ventilation in the prone position on mortality was similar in trials of prolonged prone positioning and in patients with acute lung injury. In 8 of the trials (n = 633), the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen on day 1 was 34% higher among patients in the prone position than among those who remained supine (p < 0.001); these results were similar in 4 trials on day 2 and in 5 trials on day 3. In 9 trials (n = 1206), the ratio in patients assigned to the prone group remained 6% higher the morning after they returned to the supine position compared with patients assigned to the supine group (p = 0.07). Results were quantitatively similar but statistically significant in 7 trials on day 2 and in 6 trials on day 3 (p = 0.001). In 5 trials (n = 1004), prone positioning was associated with a reduced risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99; p = 0.04) but not with a reduced duration of ventilation. In 6 trials (n = 504), prone positioning was associated with an increased risk of pressure ulcers (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.71; p = 0.01). Most analyses found no to moderate between-trial heterogeneity.InterpretationMechanical ventilation in the prone position does not reduce mortality or duration of ventilation despite improved oxygenation and a decreased risk of pneumonia. Therefore, it should not be used routinely for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, a sustained improvement in oxygenation may support the use of prone positioning in patients with very severe hypoxemia, who have not been well-studied to date.

Project description:BackgroundProne position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events.ResultsOf the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups.ConclusionFor non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesOnly randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ2) and Higgins I2 statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity.ResultsNine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50).ConclusionsOur study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42022345713.

Dataset Information

Effect of prone position on respiratory parameters, intubation and death rate in COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets