Dataset Information

Prone position in COVID 19-associated acute respiratory failure.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose of review

Prone position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing ('awake prone'). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS.

Recent findings

A literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting.

Summary

The final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.

SUBMITTER: Kharat A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8711313 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 article:Rao 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: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.