Dataset Information

Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) in intubated COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded.

Results

Eleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low).

Conclusion

Prone ventilation improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio and SpO₂ in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Chu EX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9259191 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundProne position ventilation (PPV) is resource-intensive, yet the optimal strategy for PPV in intubated patients with COVID-19 is unclear.Research questionDoes a prolonged (24 or more h) PPV strategy improve mortality in intubated COVID-19 patients compared with intermittent (∼16 h with daily supination) PPV?Study design and methodsMulticenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted intubated COVID-19 patients treated with PPV between March 11 and May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality and prone-related complications. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) were used to control for potential treatment selection bias.ResultsOf the COVID-19 patients who received PPV, 157 underwent prolonged and 110 underwent intermittent PPV. Patients undergoing prolonged PPV had reduced 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.475; 95% CI, 0.336-0.670; P < .001) and 90-day (aHR, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.461-0.883; P = .006) mortality compared with intermittent PPV. In patients with Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 150 at the time of pronation, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced 30-day (aHR, 0.357; 95% CI, 0.213-0.597; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (aHR, 0.562; 95% CI, 0.357-0.884; P = .008). Patients treated with prolonged PPV underwent fewer pronation and supination events (median, 1; 95% CI, 1-2 vs 3; 95% CI, 1-4; P < .001). PPV strategy was not associated with overall PPV-related complications, although patients receiving prolonged PPV had increased rates of facial edema and lower rates of peri-proning hypotension.InterpretationAmong intubated COVID-19 patients who received PPV, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced mortality. Prolonged PPV was associated with fewer pronation and supination events and a small increase in rates of facial edema. These findings suggest that prolonged PPV is a safe, effective strategy for mortality reduction in intubated COVID-19 patients.

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.