Prone positioning for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019: the experience of an Irish regional hospital intensive care unit.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The benefits of prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been known for many years. While some controversy exists regarding whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia should be treated with the same therapeutic strategies as for non-COVID ARDS, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign still provide a weak recommendation to utilise prone positioning in this setting.Aims
The aims of this study are to ascertain if prone positioning improves oxygenation significantly in mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS and to describe the feasibility of frequent prone positioning in an Irish regional hospital intensive care unit (ICU) with limited prior experience.Methods
In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we investigate if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ventilatory ratio improve during and following prone positioning, and whether this improvement correlates with patient baseline characteristics or survival.Results
Between March 2020 and 2021, 12 patients underwent prone positioning while mechanically ventilated for severe COVID ARDS. Sixty-six percent were male, mean age 60.9 (± 10.5), mean BMI 33.5 (± 6.74) and median APACHE II score on admission to ICU was 10.5 (7.25-16.3). Further, 83% were proned within 24 h of being intubated due to refractory hypoxaemia. PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved from 11.6 kPa (9.80-13.8) to 15.80 kPa (13.1-19.6) while prone, p < 0.0001.Conclusions
We found prone positioning to be a safe method of significantly improving oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. We did not find a relationship between patient baseline characteristics nor illness severity and degree of PaO2/FiO2 ratio improvement, nor did we find a relationship between degree of PaO2/FiO2 ratio improvement and survival.
SUBMITTER: Di Mascio N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274965 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTherapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure.DesignData were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up.SettingICUs at 68 U.S. sites.PatientsCritically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97).ConclusionsIn-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.
| S-EPMC8277560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of COVID-19 ARDS is debated. Although current evidence does not suggest an atypical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the physiological response to prone positioning is not fully understood and it is unclear which patients benefit. We aimed to determine whether proning increases oxygenation and to evaluate responders.MethodsThis case series from a single, tertiary university hospital includes all mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and proning between 17 March 2020 and 19 May 2020. The primary measure was change in PaO2 :FiO2 .ResultsForty-four patients, 32 males/12 females, were treated with proning for a total of 138 sessions, with median (range) two (1-8) sessions. Median (IQR) time for the five sessions was 14 (12-17) hours. In the first session, median (IQR) PaO2 :FiO2 increased from 104 (86-122) to 161 (127-207) mm Hg (P < .001). 36/44 patients (82%) improved in PaO2 :FiO2 , with a significant increase in PaO2 :FiO2 in the first three sessions. Median (IQR) FiO2 decreased from 0.7 (0.6-0.8) to 0.5 (0.35-0.6) (<0.001). A significant decrease occurred in the first three sessions. PaO2 , tidal volumes, PEEP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and norepinephrine infusion did not differ. Primarily, patients with PaO2 :FiO2 approximately < 120 mm Hg before treatment responded to proning. Age, sex, BMI, or SAPS 3 did not predict success in increasing PaO2 :FiO2 .ConclusionProning increased PaO2 :FiO2 , primarily in patients with PaO2 :FiO2 approximately < 120 mm Hg, with a consistency over three sessions. No characteristic was associated with non-responding, why proning may be considered in most patients. Further study is required to evaluate mortality.
| S-EPMC7894343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning improves survival in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This benefit is probably mediated by a decrease in alveolar collapse and hyperinflation and a more homogeneous distribution of lung aeration, with fewer harms from mechanical ventilation. In this preliminary physiological study we aimed to verify whether prone positioning causes analogue changes in lung aeration in COVID-19. A positive result would support prone positioning even in this other population.MethodsFifteen mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19 underwent a lung computed tomography in the supine and prone position with a constant positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) within three days of endotracheal intubation. Using quantitative analysis, we measured the volume of the non-aerated, poorly-aerated, well-aerated, and over-aerated compartments and the gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung. In addition, we expressed the heterogeneity of lung aeration with the standardized median absolute deviation of the ten vertical gas-to-tissue ratios, with lower values indicating less heterogeneity.ResultsBy the time of the study, PEEP was 12 (10-14) cmH2O and the PaO2:FiO2 107 (84-173) mmHg in the supine position. With prone positioning, the volume of the non-aerated compartment decreased by 82 (26-147) ml, of the poorly-aerated compartment increased by 82 (53-174) ml, of the normally-aerated compartment did not significantly change, and of the over-aerated compartment decreased by 28 (11-186) ml. In eight (53%) patients, the volume of the over-aerated compartment decreased more than the volume of the non-aerated compartment. The gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung decreased by 0.34 (0.25-0.49) ml/g per level in the supine position and by 0.03 (- 0.11 to 0.14) ml/g in the prone position (p < 0.001). The standardized median absolute deviation of the gas-to-tissue ratios of those ten levels decreased in all patients, from 0.55 (0.50-0.71) to 0.20 (0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn fifteen patients with COVID-19, prone positioning decreased alveolar collapse, hyperinflation, and homogenized lung aeration. A similar response has been observed in other ARDS, where prone positioning improves outcome. Therefore, our data provide a pathophysiological rationale to support prone positioning even in COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9076814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends prone positioning (PP) during mechanical ventilation for periods of 12-16 h/d to potentially improve oxygenation and survival. In this prospective observational study, we evaluated the ability of long PP sessions to improve oxygenation in awake intensive care unit (ICU) patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to COVID-19.MethodsThe study was approved by the ethics committee of Galicia (code No. 2020-188), and all patients provided informed consent. In this case series, awake patients with moderate or severe ARDS by COVID-19 admitted to the ICU at University Hospital of Santiago from March 21 to April 5, 2020 were prospectively analyzed. Patients were instructed to remain in PP as long as possible until the patient felt too tired to maintain that position. Light sedation was administered with dexmedetomidine. The following information was collected: number and duration of PP sessions; tissue O2 saturation (StO2) and blood gases before, during, and following a PP session; need of mechanical ventilation; duration of ICU admission; and ICU outcome. Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were fit to estimate changes from baseline with a random effect for patient.ResultsSeven patients with moderate or severe ARDS by COVID-19 were included. All patients received at least 1 PP session. A total of 16 PP sessions were performed in the 7 patients during the period study. The median duration of PP sessions was 10 hours. Dexmedetomidine was used in all PP sessions. Oxygenation increased in all 16 sessions performed in the 7 patients. The ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FIO2) significantly increased during PP (change from baseline 110 with 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 19-202) and, after PP, albeit not significantly (change from baseline 38 with 97.5% CI, -9.2 to 85) compared with previous supine position. Similarly, tissue oxygenation underwent a small improvement during PP (change from baseline 2.6% with 97.5% CI, 0.69-4.6) without significant changes after PP. Two patients required intubation. All patients were discharged from the ICU.ConclusionsWe found that PP improved oxygenation in ICU patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS. PP was relatively well tolerated in our patients and may be a simple strategy to improve oxygenation trying to reduce the number of patients in mechanical ventilation and the length of stay in the ICU, especially in COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7523477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aims of this study were, first, to compare the predicted (calculated) energy requirements based on standard equations with target energy requirement based on indirect calorimetry (IC) in critically ill, obese mechanically ventilated patients; and second, to compare actual energy intake to target energy requirements.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m2 for whom enteral feeding was planned. Clinical and demographic data were prospectively collected. Resting energy expenditure was measured by open-circuit IC. American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (APSPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2016 equations were used to determine predicted (calculated) energy requirements. Target energy requirements were set at 65% to 70% of measured resting energy expenditure as recommended by ASPEN/SCCM. Nitrogen balance was determined via simultaneous measurement of 24-h urinary nitrogen concentration and protein intake.ResultsTwenty-five patients (mean age: 64.5 ± 11.8 y, mean body mass index: 35.2 ± 3.6 kg/m2) underwent IC. The mean predicted energy requirement was 1227 kcal/d compared with mean measured target energy requirement of 1691 kcal/d. Predicted (calculated) energy requirements derived from ASPEN/SCCM equations were less than the target energy requirements in most cases. Actual energy intake from enteral nutrition met 57% of target energy requirements. Protein intake met 25% of target protein requirement and the mean nitrogen balance was -2.3 ± 5.1 g/d.ConclusionsPredictive equations underestimated target energy needs in this population. Further, we found that feeding to goal was often delayed resulting in failure to meet both protein and energy intake goals.
| S-EPMC6702036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of different vertical positions on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsAn open-label randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted between January and July 2020. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours and < 7 days with hemodynamic, respiratory and neurological stability were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the sitting position followed by passive orthostasis condition or the passive orthostasis followed by the sitting position condition. The primary outcome was lung aeration assessed using the lung ultrasound score (score ranges from 0 [better] to 36 [worse]).ResultsA total of 186 subjects were screened; of these subjects, 19 were enrolled (57.8% male; mean age, 73.2 years). All participants were assigned to receive at least one verticalization protocol. Passive orthostasis resulted in mean lung ultrasound scores that did not differ significantly from the sitting position (11.0 versus 13.7; mean difference, -2.7; [95%CI -6.1 to 0.71; p = 0.11). Adverse events occurred in three subjects in the passive orthostasis group and in one in the sitting position group (p = 0.99).ConclusionThis analysis did not find significant differences in lung aeration between the sitting and passive orthostasis groups. A randomized crossover clinical trial assessing the impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation is feasible. Unfortunately, the study was interrupted due to the need to treat COVID-19 patients.ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04176445.
| S-EPMC10802776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients, prone positioning has quickly become an important treatment strategy, however, prone positioning is labor intensive and comes with potential adverse effects. Therefore, identifying which critically ill intubated COVID-19 patients will benefit may help allocate labor resources.MethodsFrom the multi-center Dutch Data Warehouse of COVID-19 ICU patients from 25 hospitals, we selected all 3619 episodes of prone positioning in 1142 invasively mechanically ventilated patients. We excluded episodes longer than 24 h. Berlin ARDS criteria were not formally documented. We used supervised machine learning algorithms Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine and Extreme Gradient Boosting on readily available and clinically relevant features to predict success of prone positioning after 4 h (window of 1 to 7 h) based on various possible outcomes. These outcomes were defined as improvements of at least 10% in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilatory ratio, respiratory system compliance, or mechanical power. Separate models were created for each of these outcomes. Re-supination within 4 h after pronation was labeled as failure. We also developed models using a 20 mmHg improvement cut-off for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and using a combined outcome parameter. For all models, we evaluated feature importance expressed as contribution to predictive performance based on their relative ranking.ResultsThe median duration of prone episodes was 17 h (11-20, median and IQR, N = 2632). Despite extensive modeling using a plethora of machine learning techniques and a large number of potentially clinically relevant features, discrimination between responders and non-responders remained poor with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.62 for PaO2/FiO2 ratio using Logistic Regression, Random Forest and XGBoost. Feature importance was inconsistent between models for different outcomes. Notably, not even being a previous responder to prone positioning, or PEEP-levels before prone positioning, provided any meaningful contribution to predicting a successful next proning episode.ConclusionsIn mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, predicting the success of prone positioning using clinically relevant and readily available parameters from electronic health records is currently not feasible. Given the current evidence base, a liberal approach to proning in all patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS is therefore justified and in particular regardless of previous results of proning.
| S-EPMC9583049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Although the incidence of pressure injury in the prone position is high for the mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit, evidence-based strategies are still lacking. Propose To conduct a systematic review of current evidence, and to propose a series of strategies to prevent pressure injuries among mechanically ventilated patients with prone position in the intensive care unit. Methods The study was guided by the Medical Research Council framework. After a systematic review of current evidence of original articles, guidelines, expert consensus and theories, a strategy draft was developed. Then we invited 20 experts to modify and refine these strategies through two rounds of Delphi consensus method. Results After two rounds of Delphi process, the importance of coefficient of variation (Cv) and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance in the strategies repository were 0.067 and 0.311, respectively. And the operability of Cv and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance in the strategy draft was 0.055 and 0.294, respectively. Ultimately, we established 31 strategies for including 7 themes (assess risk factors, assess skin and tissue, body position management, skin care, nutrition, preventing medical device-related pressure injuries, education and supervision). In addition, we also developed a strategy framework to clarify our strategies. Conclusion According to the Medical Research Council framework, we developed 7 themes and 31 strategies to prevention prone-position pressure injuries among the intensive care unit mechanically ventilated patients. This study was considered to improve the clinical management of pressure injuries among prone position patients in the intensive care unit settings.
| S-EPMC10461099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and safety have been compared in numerous trials with inconsistent results. To resolve uncertainties regarding usefulness of these sedatives, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials comparing sedatives in mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. Graph-theoretical methods were employed for network meta-analysis. A total of 51 citations comprising 52 RCTs were included in our analysis. Dexmedetomidine showed shorter MV duration than lorazepam (mean difference (MD): 68.7; 95% CI: 18.2-119.3 hours), midazolam (MD: 10.2; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 hours) and propofol (MD: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-5.9 hours). Compared with dexmedetomidine, midazolam was associated with significantly increased risk of delirium (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17-5.19). Our study shows that dexmedetomidine has potential benefits in reducing duration of MV and lowering the risk of delirium.
| S-EPMC5359583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective treatments for the critically ill patient with novel coronavirus disease 2019 are desperately needed. Given the role of cytokine release syndrome in the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory distress, therapies aimed at mitigating cytokine release, such as the interleukin-6 receptor-inhibiting monoclonal antibody tocilizumab, represent potential treatment strategies. Therefore, we examined the outcomes of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients treated with tocilizumab and factors associated with clinical improvement. Design:A retrospective cohort analysis of 21-day outcomes for consecutive mechanically ventilated patients treated with tocilizumab from March 24, 2020, to May 4, 2020. Setting:Nine ICUs at six hospitals within a hospital system in Houston, Texas, United States. Patients:The first 62 coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation who were treated with tocilizumab, which was considered for all patients with severe disease. Interventions:Tocilizumab was administered either at a weight-based dose of 4-8?mg/kg or at a flat dose of 400?mg, with repeat administration in some patients at the physician's discretion. Measurements and Main Results:The primary outcomes were mortality and clinical improvement, defined as extubation. By day 21 post-tocilizumab, clinical improvement occurred in 36 patients (58%) and 13 patients (21%) died. In both univariable and multivariable analyses, age less than 60 years was associated with clinical improvement. Transient transaminitis was the most common adverse reaction, occurring in 25 patients (40%). Conclusions:Based on clinical outcomes and mortality rates seen in previous reports of mechanically ventilated patients, tocilizumab, as part of the management strategy for severe coronavirus disease 2019, represents a promising option. These findings support the need for evaluation of tocilizumab in a randomized controlled trial.
| S-EPMC7531754 | biostudies-literature