Rethinking the efficacy of awake prone positioning in COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure - Authors' reply.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Luo J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9154732 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Rethinking the efficacy of awake prone positioning in COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure - Authors' reply.
Luo Jian J Pavlov Ivan I Tavernier Elsa E Laffey John G JG Guerin Claude C Vines David D Perez Yonatan Y Roca Oriol O Kharat Aileen A McNicholas Bairbre B Ibarra-Estrada Miguel M Tan Wei W Ehrmann Stephan S Li Jie J
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20220601 6
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9154731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prone positioning reduces mortality in the management of intubated patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. It allows improvement in oxygenation by improving ventilation/perfusion ratio mismatching.Because of its positive physiological effects, prone positioning has also been tested in non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients, or "awake" prone positioning. This review provides an update on awake prone positioning for hypoxaemic respiratory failure, in both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 patients. In non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure, studies are limited to a few small nonrandomised studies and involved patients with different diseases. However, results have been appealing with regard to oxygenation improvement, especially when combined with noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula.The recent COVID-19 pandemic has led to a major increase in hospitalisations for acute respiratory failure. Awake prone positioning has been used with the aim to prevent intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation. Prone positioning in conscious, non-intubated COVID-19 patients is used in emergency departments, medical wards and intensive care units.Several trials reported an improvement in oxygenation and respiratory rate during prone positioning, but impacts on clinical outcomes, particularly on intubation rates and survival, remain unclear. Tolerance of prolonged prone positioning is an issue. Larger controlled, randomised studies are underway to provide results concerning clinical benefit and define optimised prone positioning regimens.
| S-EPMC8112009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning has been reported to improve oxygenation for patients with COVID-19 in retrospective and observational studies, but whether it improves patient-centred outcomes is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of awake prone positioning to prevent intubation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 in a large-scale randomised trial.MethodsIn this prospective, a priori set up and defined, collaborative meta-trial of six randomised controlled open-label superiority trials, adults who required respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were randomly assigned to awake prone positioning or standard care. Hospitals from six countries were involved: Canada, France, Ireland, Mexico, USA, Spain. Patients or their care providers were not masked to allocated treatment. The primary composite outcome was treatment failure, defined as the proportion of patients intubated or dying within 28 days of enrolment. The six trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04325906, NCT04347941, NCT04358939, NCT04395144, NCT04391140, and NCT04477655.FindingsBetween April 2, 2020 and Jan 26, 2021, 1126 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to awake prone positioning (n=567) or standard care (n=559). 1121 patients (excluding five who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Treatment failure occurred in 223 (40%) of 564 patients assigned to awake prone positioning and in 257 (46%) of 557 patients assigned to standard care (relative risk 0·86 [95% CI 0·75-0·98]). The hazard ratio (HR) for intubation was 0·75 (0·62-0·91), and the HR for mortality was 0·87 (0·68-1·11) with awake prone positioning compared with standard care within 28 days of enrolment. The incidence of prespecified adverse events was low and similar in both groups.InterpretationAwake prone positioning of patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 reduces the incidence of treatment failure and the need for intubation without any signal of harm. These results support routine awake prone positioning of patients with COVID-19 who require support with high-flow nasal cannula.FundingOpen AI inc, Rice Foundation, Projet Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interrégional, Appel d'Offre 2020, Groupement Interrégional de Recherche Clinique et d'Innovation Grand Ouest, Association pour la Promotion à Tours de la Réanimation Médicale, Fond de dotation du CHRU de Tours, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd.
| S-EPMC8378833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate and summarize systematic reviews of the effects and safety of awake prone positioning for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CSPD, CCD and CBM from their inception to March 28, 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) of awake prone positioning (APP) for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in adults were included. Two reviewers screened the eligible articles, and four reviewers in pairs extracted data and assessed the methodological quality/certainty of the evidence of all included SRs by AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The overlap of primary studies was measured by calculating corrected covered areas. Data from the included reviews were synthesized with a narrative description.ResultsA total of 11 SRs were included. The methodological quality of SRs included 1 "High", 4 "Moderate", 2 "Low" and 4 "Critically low" by AMSTAR 2. With the GRADE system, no high-quality evidence was found, and only 14 outcomes provided moderate-quality evidence. Data synthesis of the included SR outcomes showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation (11 SRs) and improving oxygenation (3 SRs), whereas reduced significant mortality was not found in RCT-based SRs. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between groups (8 SRs). The corrected covered area index was 27%, which shows very high overlap among studies.ConclusionThe available SRs suggest that APP has benefits in terms of reducing intubation rates and improving oxygenation for COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, without an increased risk of adverse events. The conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence.Trial registrationThe protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023400986. Registered 15 April 2023.
| S-EPMC10759512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285.FindingsA total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU.FundingOpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
| S-EPMC8926412 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7450241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whereas prone positioning of intubated patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome represents the standard of care, proning non-intubated patients, so-called “awake prone positioning (APP),” has only recently gained popularity and undergone scientific evaluation. In this review, we summarize current evidence on physiological and clinical effects of APP on patients' centered outcomes, such as intubation and mortality, the safety of the technique, factors and predictors of success, practical issues for optimal implementation, and future areas of research. Current evidence supports using APP among patients suffering from acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and undergoing advanced respiratory support, such as high-flow nasal cannula, in an intensive care unit setting. Healthcare teams should aim to prone patients at least 8 h daily. Future research should focus on optimizing the tolerance of the technique and comprehensively evaluating benefits in other patient populations.
| S-EPMC9464348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeProne positioning of non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and hypoxemic respiratory failure may prevent intubation and improve outcomes. Nevertheless, there are limited data on its feasibility, safety, and physiologic effects. The objective of our study was to assess the tolerability and safety of awake prone positioning in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsThis historical cohort study was performed across four hospitals in Calgary, Canada. Included patients had suspected COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit (ICU) consultation, and underwent awake prone positioning. The duration, frequency, tolerability, and adverse events from prone positioning were recorded. Respiratory parameters were assessed before, during, and after prone positioning. The primary outcome was the tolerability and safety of prone positioning.ResultsSeventeen patients (n = 12 ICU, n = 5 hospital ward) were included between April and May 2020. The median (range) number of prone positioning days was 1 (1-7) and the median number of sessions was 2 (1-6) per day. The duration of prone positioning was 75 (30-480) min, and the peripheral oxygen saturation was 91% (84-95) supine and 98% (92-100) prone. Limitations to prone position duration were pain/general discomfort (47%) and delirium (6%); 47% of patients had no limitations. Seven patients (41%) required intubation and two patients (12%) died.ConclusionsIn a small sample, prone positioning non-intubated COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxemia was safe; however, many patients did not tolerate prolonged durations. Although patients had improved oxygenation and respiratory rate in the prone position, many still required intubation. Future studies are required to determine methods to improve the tolerability of awake prone positioning and whether there is an impact on clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7427754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients is becoming widely applied in practice alongside noninvasive respiratory support. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effect, timing, and populations that might benefit from awake proning regarding oxygenation, mortality, and tracheal intubation compared with supine position in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and BMJ Best Practice until August 2021 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42021250322). Studies included comprise least-wise 20 adult patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsFourteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria and 2352 patients were included; of those patients, 99% (n=2332/2352) had COVID-19. Amongst 1041 (44%) patients who were placed in the prone position, 1021 were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference -23.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -34.80 to 11.39; P=0.0001; I2=26%) after prone positioning. In patients with COVID-19, lower mortality was found in the group placed in the prone position (150/771 prone vs 391/1457 supine; odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.80; P=0.003; I2=48%), but the tracheal intubation rate was unchanged (284/824 prone vs 616/1271 supine; OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43-1.22; P=0.220; I2=75%). Overall proning was tolerated for a median of 4 h (inter-quartile range: 2-16).ConclusionsProne positioning can improve oxygenation amongst non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure when applied for at least 4 h over repeated daily episodes. Awake proning appears safe, but the effect on tracheal intubation rate and survival remains uncertain.
| S-EPMC8514681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19.DesignSystematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.Study eligibilityRandomized trials comparing awake prone positioning versus usual care in adults with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure. Information sources were Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 4 March 2022.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for endotracheal intubation and mortality outcomes. GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed for outcomes.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, escalation of oxygen modality, change in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and adverse events.Results17 trials (2931 patients) met the eligibility criteria. 12 trials were at low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and two were at high risk. Awake prone positioning reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with usual care (crude average 24.2% v 29.8%, relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.94; high certainty). This translates to 55 fewer intubations per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 87 to 19 fewer intubations). Awake prone positioning did not significantly affect secondary outcomes, including mortality (15.6% v 17.2%, relative risk 0.90, 0.76 to 1.07; high certainty), ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.97 days, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.4; low certainty), ICU length of stay (-2.1 days, -4.5 to 0.4; low certainty), hospital length of stay (-0.09 days, -0.69 to 0.51; moderate certainty), and escalation of oxygen modality (21.4% v 23.0%, relative risk 1.04, 0.74 to 1.44; low certainty). Adverse events related to awake prone positioning were uncommon. Bayesian meta-analysis showed a high probability of benefit with awake prone positioning for endotracheal intubation (non-informative prior, mean relative risk 0.83, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.97; posterior probability for relative risk <0.95=96%) but lower probability for mortality (0.90, 0.73 to 1.13; <0.95=68%).ConclusionsAwake prone positioning compared with usual care reduces the risk of endotracheal intubation in adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19 but probably has little to no effect on mortality or other outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022314856.
| S-EPMC9727649 | biostudies-literature