Dataset Information

Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related ARDS: benefits and detriments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many more patients were turned prone than before, resulting in a considerable increase in workload. Whether extending duration of prone position may be beneficial has received little attention. We report here benefits and detriments of a strategy of extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

A eetrospective, monocentric, study was performed on intensive care unit patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who required tracheal intubation and who have been treated with at least one session of prone position of duration greater or equal to 24 h. When prone positioning sessions were initiated, patients were kept prone for a period that covered two nights. Data regarding the incidence of pressure injury and ventilation parameters were collected retrospectively on medical and nurse files of charts. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pressure injury of stage ≥ II during the ICU stay.

Results

For the 81 patients included, the median duration of prone positioning sessions was 39 h [interquartile range (IQR) 34-42]. The cumulated incidence of stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26% [95% CI 17-37] and 2.5% [95% CI 0.3-8.8] for stages III/IV pressure injuries. Patients were submitted to a median of 2 sessions [IQR 1-4] and for 213 (94%) prone positioning sessions, patients were turned over to supine position during daytime, i.e., between 9 AM and 6 PM. This increased duration was associated with additional increase in oxygenation after 16 h with the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio increasing from 150 mmHg [IQR 121-196] at H+ 16 to 162 mmHg [IQR 124-221] before being turned back to supine (p = 0.017).

Conclusion

In patients with extended duration of prone position up to 39 h, cumulative incidence for stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26%, with 25%, 2.5%, and 0% for stage II, III, and IV, respectively. Oxygenation continued to increase significantly beyond the standard 16-h duration. Our results may have significant impact on intensive care unit staffing and patients' respiratory conditions.

Trial registration

Institutional review board 00006477 of HUPNVS, Université Paris Cité, APHP, with the reference: CER-2021-102, obtained on October 11th 2021. Registered at Clinicaltrials (NCT05124197).

SUBMITTER: Walter T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9263064 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome.ResultsWhen compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hemodynamic response to prone position (PP) has never been studied in a large series of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The primary aim of this study was to estimate the rate of PP sessions associated with cardiac index improvement. Secondary objective was to describe hemodynamic response to PP and during the shift from PP to supine position. METHODS:The study was a single-center retrospective observational study, performed on ARDS patients, undergoing at least one PP session under monitoring by transpulmonary thermodilution. PP sessions performed more than 10 days after ARDS onset, or with any missing cardiac index measurements before (T1), at the end (T3), and after the PP session (T4) were excluded. Changes in hemodynamic parameters during PP were tested after statistical adjustment for volume of fluid challenges, vasopressor and dobutamine dose at each time point to take into account therapeutic changes during PP sessions. RESULTS:In total, 107 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totalizing 197 PP sessions. Changes in cardiac index between T1 and T2 (early response to PP) and between T1 and T3 (late response to PP) were significantly correlated (R2?=?0.42, p?<?0.001) with a concordance rate amounting to 85%. Cardiac index increased significantly between T1 and T3 in 49 sessions (25% [95% confidence interval (CI95%) 18-32%]), decreased significantly in 46 (23% [CI95% 16-31%]), and remained stable in 102 (52% [CI95% 45-59%]). Global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) increased slightly but significantly from 719?±?193 mL m-2 at T1 to 757?±?209 mL m-2 at T3 and returned to baseline values at T4. Cardiac index and oxygen delivery decreased slightly but significantly from T3 to T4, without detectable increase in lactate level. Patients who increased their cardiac index during PP had significantly lower CI, GEDVI, global ejection fraction at T1, and received significantly more fluids than patients who did not. CONCLUSION:PP is associated with an increase in cardiac index in 18% to 32% of all PP sessions and a sustained increase in GEDVI reversible after return to supine position. Return from prone to supine position is associated with a slight hemodynamic impairment.