Dataset Information

Comparing Prone Positioning Use in COVID-19 Versus Historic Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown.

Objectives

To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic.

Design setting and participants

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020-2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018-2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency.

Results

Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7-57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained.

Conclusions and relevance

We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.

SUBMITTER: Hochberg CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9243245 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite strong evidence supporting proning in acute respiratory distress syndrome, few eligible patients receive it. This study determines the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase utilization of proning for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.DesignWe created decision trees to model severe acute respiratory distress syndrome from ICU admission through death (societal perspective) and hospital discharge (hospital perspective). We assumed patients received low tidal volume ventilation. We used short-term outcome estimates from the PROSEVA trial and longitudinal cost and benefit data from cohort studies. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, we used distributions for each input that included the fifth to 95th percentile of its CI.SettingICUs that care for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.SubjectsPatients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.InterventionsThe implementation of a hypothetical intervention to increase the appropriate utilization of prone positioning.Measurements and main resultsIn the societal perspective model, an intervention that increased proning utilization from 16% to 65% yielded an additional 0.779 (95% CI, 0.088-1.714) quality-adjusted life years at an additional long-term cost of $31,156 (95% CI, -$158 to $92,179) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $38,648 per quality-adjusted life year [95% CI, $1,695-$98,522]). If society was willing to pay $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, any intervention costing less than $51,328 per patient with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome would represent good value. From a hospital perspective, the intervention yielded 0.072 (95% CI, 0.008-0.147) more survivals-to-discharge at a cost of $5,242 (95% CI, -$19,035 to $41,019) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $44,615 per extra survival [95% CI, -$250,912 to $558,222]). If hospitals were willing to pay $100,000 per survival-to-discharge, any intervention costing less than $5,140 per patient would represent good value.ConclusionsInterventions that increase utilization of proning would be cost-effective from both societal and hospital perspectives under many plausible cost and benefit assumptions.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with influenza complicated with pneumonia are at high risk of rapid progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning with longer duration and lung-protective strategies might reduce the mortality level in ARDS. The aim of this study is to investigate the survival predictors of prone positioning in patients with ARDS caused by influenza pneumonia.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted by eight tertiary referral centers in Taiwan. From January 1 to March 31 in 2016, all of the patients in intensive care units with virology-proven influenza pneumonia were collected, while all of those patients with ARDS and receiving prone positioning were enrolled. Demographic data, laboratory examinations, management records, ventilator settings and clinical outcomes were collected for analysis.ResultsDuring the study period, 336 patients with severe influenza pneumonia were screened and 263 patients met the diagnosis of ARDS. Totally, 65 patients receiving prone positioning were included for analysis. The 60-day survivors had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), creatinine level and lower rate of receiving renal replacement therapy than non-survivors (22.4 ± 8.5 vs. 29.2 ± 7.4, p = 0.003; 106.6 ± 40.9 vs. 135.3 ± 48.6, p = 0.019; 1.2 ± 0.9 mg/dL vs. 3.1 ± 3.6 mg/dL, p = 0.040; and 4% vs. 42%, p < 0.005). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified PSI (hazard ratio 1.020, 95% confidence interval 1.009-1.032; p < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (hazard ratio 6.248, 95% confidence interval 2.245-17.389; p < 0.001), and increase in dynamic driving pressure (hazard ratio 1.372, 95% confidence interval 1.095-1.718; p = 0.006) which were independent predictors associated with 60-day mortality.ConclusionsIn the present study, in evaluating the effect of prone positioning in patients with influenza pneumonia-related ARDS, pneumonia severity index, renal replacement therapy and increase in dynamic driving pressure were associated with 60-day mortality in patients with influenza pneumonia-related ARDS receiving prone positioning.

Project description:BackgroundProne positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics and is associated with lower mortality in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite this, some patients develop refractory hypoxemia and hypercapnia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support and are usually cared for in supine position. The physiologic and outcome benefits of routine PP of patients during VV ECMO remains unclear. Hence, we conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcome benefits of PP for patients with ARDS being treated with VV ECMO.MethodsAfter registration with PROSPERO (CRD42020199723), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies that reported PP in more than 10 adult patients supported with VV ECMO from origin to 1 March 2021. Studies were reviewed for quality using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used. The primary outcome of interest was cumulative survival. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) and ECMO duration. Changes in arterial blood gas (ABG) values, ventilator mechanics and complication rates were also studied.ResultsOf 812 potentially relevant publications, 12 studies (640 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Due to overlapping study populations, 11 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Cumulative survival in patients that underwent PP was 57% (95% CI 41.9-71.4, high certainty). Patients that underwent PP had longer ICU LOS (+ 14.5 days, 95% CI 3.4-25.7, p = 0.01) and ECMO duration (+ 9.6 days, 95% CI 5.5-13.7, p < 0.0001). After PP, patients had significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower PaCO2 and reduced ventilator driving pressure, and no major complications were reported.ConclusionsPP during VV ECMO appears safe with a cumulative survival of 57% and may result in longer ECMO runs and ICU LOS. However, evidence from appropriately designed randomized trials is needed prior to widespread adoption of PP on VV ECMO.