Dataset Information

Effect of awake prone position on diaphragmatic thickening fraction in patients assisted by noninvasive ventilation for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure related to novel coronavirus disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Awake prone position is an emerging rescue therapy applied in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) related to novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although applied to stabilize respiratory status, in awake patients, the application of prone position may reduce comfort with a consequent increase in the workload imposed on respiratory muscles. Thus, we primarily ascertained the effect of awake prone position on diaphragmatic thickening fraction, assessed through ultrasound, in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIV.

Methods

We enrolled all COVID-19 adult critically ill patients, admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for hypoxemic ARF and undergoing NIV, deserving of awake prone positioning as a rescue therapy. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy and any contraindication to awake prone position and NIV. On ICU admission, after NIV onset, in supine position, and at 1 h following awake prone position application, diaphragmatic thickening fraction was obtained on the right side. Across all the study phases, NIV was maintained with the same setting present at study entry. Vital signs were monitored throughout the entire study period. Comfort was assessed through numerical rating scale (0 the worst comfort and 10 the highest comfort level). Data were presented in median and 25th-75th percentile range.

Results

From February to May 2021, 20 patients were enrolled and finally analyzed. Despite peripheral oxygen saturation improvement [96 (94-97)% supine vs 98 (96-99)% prone, p = 0.008], turning to prone position induced a worsening in comfort score from 7.0 (6.0-8.0) to 6.0 (5.0-7.0) (p = 0.012) and an increase in diaphragmatic thickening fraction from 33.3 (25.7-40.5)% to 41.5 (29.8-50.0)% (p = 0.025).

Conclusions

In our COVID-19 patients assisted by NIV in ICU, the application of awake prone position improved the oxygenation at the expense of a greater diaphragmatic thickening fraction compared to supine position. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04904731. Registered on 05/25/2021, retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04904731 .

SUBMITTER: Cammarota G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8383244 | 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:Severe hypoxemic respiratory failure is frequently managed with invasive mechanical ventilation with or without prone position (PP). We describe 13 cases of nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) of varied etiology, who were treated successfully in PP without the need for intubation. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, supplementary oxygen with venturi face mask, or nasal cannula were used variedly in these patients. Mechanical ventilatory support is offered to patients with AHRF when other methods, such as NIV and oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, fail. Invasive mechanical ventilation is fraught with complications which could be immediate, ranging from worsening of hypoxemia, worsening hemodynamics, loss of airway, and even death. Late complications could be ventilator-associated pneumonia, biotrauma, tracheal stenosis, etc. Prone position is known to improve oxygenation and outcome in adult respiratory distress syndrome. We postulated that positioning an unintubated patient with AHRF in PP will improve oxygenation and avoid the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and thereby its complications. Here, we describe a series of 13 patients with hypoxemic respiratory of varied etiology, who were successfully treated in the PP without endotracheal intubation. Two patients (15.4%) had mild, nine (69.2%) had moderate, and two (15.4%) had severe hypoxemia. Oxygenation as assessed by PaO2/FiO2 ratio in supine position was 154 ± 52, which improved to 328 ± 65 after PP. Alveolar to arterial (A-a) O2 gradient improved from a median of 170.5 mm Hg interquartile range (IQR) (127.8, 309.7) in supine position to 49.1 mm Hg IQR (45.0, 56.6) after PP. This improvement in oxygenation took a median of 46 hours, IQR (24, 109). Thus, voluntary PP maneuver improved oxygenation and avoided endotracheal intubation in a select group of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. This maneuver may be relevant in the ongoing novel coronavirus disease pandemic by potentially reducing endotracheal intubation and the need for ventilator and therefore better utilization of critical care services.How to cite this articleRao SV, Udhayachandar R, Rao VB, Raju NA, Nesaraj JJJ, Kandasamy S, et al. Voluntary Prone Position for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Unintubated Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(7):557-562.

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:BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that an awake prone position may be beneficial for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in patients with COVID-19, but the results are not consistent, especially in terms of oxygenation outcomes and intubation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of the awake prone position on AHRF in patients with COVID-19 with all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsAn extensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 December 2019 to 30 October 2022, with no language restrictions was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the PRISMA statement. We only included RCTs and used the Cochrane risk assessment tool for quality assessment.ResultsFourteen RCTs fulfilled the selection criteria, and 3,290 patients were included. A meta-analysis found that patients in the awake prone position group had more significant improvement in the SpO2/FiO2 ratio [mean difference (MD): 29.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-48.13; P = 0.001] compared with the usual care. The prone position also reduced the need for intubation [odd ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.84; P < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%]. There was no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events between the two groups.ConclusionThe awake prone position was a promising intervention method, which is beneficial to improve the oxygenation of patients with ARDS or AHRF caused by COVID-19 and reduce the need for intubation. However, the awake prone position showed no obvious advantage in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of ICU admission, and adverse events.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier: CRD42022367885.