Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial

Comparison of high-flow nasal therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure on outcomes in critically ill patients admitted for COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

The optimal first-line noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) to improve outcome in patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU is still debated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in seven French ICUs, including all adults admitted between July and December 2020 with documented SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2<300 mmHg), and treated with either high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) alone, noninvasive ventilation alone or in combination with HFNT (NIV), or continuous positive airway pressure alone or in combination with HFNT (CPAP). The primary outcome was NIRS failure at day 28, defined as the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) or death without ETI.

RESULTS

Among the 355 patients included, 160 (45%) were treated with HFNT alone, 115 (32%) with NIV and 80 (23%) with CPAP. The primary outcome occurred in 65 (41%), 69 (60%), and 25 (31%) patients among those treated with HFNT alone, NIV, and CPAP, respectively (P<0.001). After univariate analysis, patients treated with CPAP had a trend for a lower incidence of the primary outcome, whereas patients treated with NIV had a significant higher incidence of the primary outcome, both compared to those treated with HFNT alone (unadjusted Hazard ratio 0.67; 95% CI [0.42-1.06], and 1.58; 95% CI [1.12-2.22]; P=0.09 and 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Among ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with NIRS, the outcome seems to differ according to the initial chosen strategy. Prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to identify the optimal strategy.

Changing epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the changes in AKI epidemiology between the first and the second COVID wave in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

This was an observational study of critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 in an expanded tertiary care intensive care unit (ICU) in London, UK. Baseline characteristics, organ support, COVID-19 treatments, and patient and kidney outcomes up to 90 days after discharge from hospital were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 772 patients were included in the final analysis (68% male, mean age 56 ± 13.6). Compared with wave 1, patients in wave 2 were older, had higher body mass index and clinical frailty score, but lower baseline serum creatinine and C-reactive protein (CRP). The proportion of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) on ICU admission was lower in wave 2 (61% vs 80%; p < 0.001). AKI incidence within 14 days of ICU admission was 76% in wave 1 and 51% in wave 2 (p < 0.001); in wave 1, 32% received KRT compared with 13% in wave 2 (p < 0.001). Patients in wave 2 had significantly lower daily cumulative fluid balance (FB) than in wave 1. Fewer patients were dialysis dependent at 90 days in wave 2 (1% vs. 4%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill adult patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19, the risk of AKI and receipt of KRT significantly declined in the second wave. The trend was associated with less MV, lower PEEP and lower cumulative FB.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04445259.

Efficacy and safety of prone position in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prone position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups.

CONCLUSION

For non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Effectiveness of early awake self proning strategy in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 hypoxemia: an open-labelled randomized clinical trial from Jodhpur, India

Awake self-proning is being used widely as respiratory support in COVID-19 hypoxemia, in resource-limited settings. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of early awake self-proning in preventing mortality and the need for intubation in adults with moderate COVID-19 hypoxemia. In this randomized clinical trial with inten-tion-to-treat analysis, we enrolled eligible adults with COVID-19 hypoxemia (SpO2 <94%), requiring supplemental oxygen via nasal prongs or facemask from a tertiary-care setting in Jodhpur, India between June 15 to December 24, 2020. Awake proning comprised of 4-hour cycles with prone position maintained 2 h per cycle. The control group did not maintain any specific position. All participants received standard care. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortal-ity and requirement for mechanical ventilation. Of 502 participants included, mean (SD) age was 59.7 (12.7) years with 124 women (24.6%); 257 were randomized to awake-proning, 245 to control group and all 502 were included for follow-up mortality analysis. Mortality at follow-up was 16.3% in the awake-prone and 15.1% in the control group [OR:1.10 (0.68-1.78), p=0.703). The requirement of mechanical ventilation was 10% in both groups (p=0.974). Survival time (in days) was not significantly different between the groups [Log-rank test, HR: 1.08 (95% CI, 0.70-1.68), p=0.726]. Likewise, time to intubation was comparable (Log-rank test, HR: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.56-1.70), p=0.974). Hence, awake self-proning did not improve survival or requirement of mechanical-ventilation in non-intubated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 hypox-emia. Trial Registration: Clinical trial registry of India, ID: CTRI/2020/06/025804.   The trial is accessible from WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) at https://trialsearch.who.int ***************************************************************   *Appendix Authors list  Deepak Kumar1, Gopal Krishna Bohra1, Nishant Kumar Chauhan2, Nikhil Kothari3, Vijaya Lakshmi Nag4 Sanjeev Misra5  1Department of Internal Medicine; 2Department of Pulmonary Medicine; 3Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care; 4Department of Microbiology; 5Department of Surgical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.

Efficacy of awake prone positioning in patients with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Randomized 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 SYNTHESIS

Two 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 MEASURES

The 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.

RESULTS

17 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%).

CONCLUSIONS

Awake 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 REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022314856.

Positive end-expiratory pressure and prone position alter the capacity of force generation from diaphragm in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an animal experiment

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous breathing potentially injures lungs and diaphragm when spontaneous effort is vigorous in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) while immobility also has risks of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) acquired weakness and diaphragm atrophy. Thus, ventilatory strategy to mitigate strong spontaneous effort should be promptly established without a systemic use of neuromuscular blocking agent. Here, we investigated the impacts of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and body position on the capacity of force generation from diaphragm following bilateral phrenic nerve stimulations in a rabbit ARDS model.

METHODS

Using lung-injured rabbits, we measured 1) transdiaphragmatic pressure by bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation and 2) end-expiratory lung volume using computed tomography, under two different levels of PEEP (high, low) and body positions (supine, prone).

RESULTS

Overall, transdiaphragmatic pressure was the highest at low PEEP in supine position and the lowest at high PEEP in prone position. Compared to values in low PEEP + supine, transdiaphragmatic pressure was significantly reduced by either prone alone (the same PEEP) or increasing PEEP alone (the same position) or both combinations. End-expiratory lung volume was significantly increased with increasing PEEP in both positions, but it was not altered by body position.

INTERPRETATION

The capacity of force generation from diaphragm was modulated by PEEP and body position during mechanical ventilation in ARDS. Higher PEEP or prone position per se or both was effective to decrease the force generation from diaphragm.

Providing respiratory and ventilation care in the face of shifting evidence: current opinion in critical care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the clinical problem and noninvasive treatments of hypoxemia in critically-ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and describe recent advances in evidence supporting bedside decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation, along with awake prone positioning are potentially helpful therapies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy has been widely implemented as a form of oxygen support supported by prepandemic randomized controlled trials showing possible benefit over noninvasive ventilation. Given the sheer volume of patients, noninvasive ventilation was often required, and based on a well conducted randomized controlled trial there was a developing role for helmet-interface noninvasive. Coupled with noninvasive supports, the use of awake prone positioning demonstrated physiological benefits, but randomized controlled trial data did not demonstrate clear outcome superiority.

SUMMARY

The use of noninvasive oxygen strategies and our understanding of the proposed mechanisms are evolving. Variability in patient severity and physiology may dictate a personalized approach to care. High-flow nasal oxygen may be paired with awake and spontaneously breathing prone-positioning to optimize oxygen and lung mechanics but requires further insight before widely applying to clinical practice.

Dynamics of disease characteristics and clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients over the time course of the pandemic: an analysis of the prospective, international, multicentre RISC-19-ICU registry

Background

It remains elusive how the characteristics, the course of disease, the clinical management and the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide have changed over the course of the pandemic.

Methods

Prospective, observational registry constituted by 90 ICUs across 22 countries worldwide including patients with a laboratory-confirmed, critical presentation of COVID-19 requiring advanced organ support. Hierarchical, generalized linear mixed-effect models accounting for hospital and country variability were employed to analyse the continuous evolution of the studied variables over the pandemic.

Results

Four thousand forty-one patients were included from March 2020 to September 2021. Over this period, the age of the admitted patients (62 [95% CI 60–63] years vs 64 [62–66] years, p < 0.001) and the severity of organ dysfunction at ICU admission decreased (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment 8.2 [7.6–9.0] vs 5.8 [5.3–6.4], p < 0.001) and increased, while more female patients (26 [23–29]% vs 41 [35–48]%, p < 0.001) were admitted. The time span between symptom onset and hospitalization as well as ICU admission became longer later in the pandemic (6.7 [6.2–7.2| days vs 9.7 [8.9–10.5] days, p < 0.001). The PaO₂/FiO₂ at admission was lower (132 [123–141] mmHg vs 101 [91–113] mmHg, p < 0.001) but showed faster improvements over the initial 5 days of ICU stay in late 2021 compared to early 2020 (34 [20–48] mmHg vs 70 [41–100] mmHg, p = 0.05). The number of patients treated with steroids and tocilizumab increased, while the use of therapeutic anticoagulation presented an inverse U-shaped behaviour over the course of the pandemic. The proportion of patients treated with high-flow oxygen (5 [4–7]% vs 20 [14–29], p < 0.001) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (14 [11–18]% vs 24 [17–33]%, p < 0.001) throughout the pandemic increased concomitant to a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation (82 [76–86]% vs 74 [64–82]%, p < 0.001). The ICU mortality (23 [19–26]% vs 17 [12–25]%, p < 0.001) and length of stay (14 [13–16] days vs 11 [10–13] days, p < 0.001) decreased over 19 months of the pandemic.

Conclusion

Characteristics and disease course of critically ill COVID-19 patients have continuously evolved, concomitant to the clinical management, throughout the pandemic leading to a younger, less severely ill ICU population with distinctly different clinical, pulmonary and inflammatory presentations than at the onset of the pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04065-2.

Supportive Care in Patients with Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019

Specific therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have limited efficacy in the event a patient worsens clinically and requires admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thus, providing quality supportive care is essential to the overall management of patients with critical COVID-19. Patients with respiratory failure not requiring intubation should be supported with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, or high flow oxygenation. Use of these respiratory modalities may prevent patients from subsequently requiring intubation. Basic components of supportive care for the critically ill should be applied equally to patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.

Lung ultrasound response to awake prone positioning predicts the need for intubation in patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an observational study

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) reduces the intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated by high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). However, the lung aeration response to APP has not been addressed. We aimed to explore the lung aeration response to APP by lung ultrasound (LUS).

Methods

This two-center, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with COVID-19-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated by HFNC and APP. LUS score was recorded 5–10 min before, 1 h after APP, and 5–10 min after supine in the first APP session within the first three days. The primary outcome was LUS score changes in the first three days. Secondary outcomes included changes in SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio, respiratory rate and ROX index (SpO₂/FiO₂/respiratory rate) related to APP, and the rate of treatment success (patients who avoided intubation).

Results

Seventy-one patients were enrolled. LUS score decreased from 20 (interquartile range [IQR] 19–24) to 19 (18–21) (p < 0.001) after the first APP session, and to 19 (18–21) (p < 0.001) after three days. Compared to patients with treatment failure (n = 20, 28%), LUS score reduction after the first three days in patients with treatment success (n = 51) was greater (− 2.6 [95% confidence intervals − 3.1 to − 2.0] vs 0 [− 1.2 to 1.2], p = 0.001). A decrease in dorsal LUS score > 1 after the first APP session was associated with decreased risk for intubation (Relative risk 0.25 [0.09–0.69]). APP daily duration was correlated with LUS score reduction in patients with treatment success, especially in dorsal lung zones (r =  − 0.76; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and treated by HFNC, APP reduced LUS score. The reduction in dorsal LUS scores after APP was associated with treatment success. The longer duration on APP was correlated with greater lung aeration.

Trial registration This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on April 22, 2021. Identification number NCT04855162.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04064-3.

Practice of Awake Prone Positioning in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoAcT-COVID Study

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was ‘treatment failure’, a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum: a surrogate of P-SILI in critically ill COVID-19 patients

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SP) has been described early during the COVID-19 pandemic in large series of patients with severe pneumonia, but most patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) at the time of SP diagnosis. In this retrospective multicenter observational study, we aimed at describing the prevalence and outcomes of SP during severe COVID-19 with pneumonia before any IMV, to rule out mechanisms induced by IMV in the development of pneumomediastinum.Among 549 patients, 21 patients (4%) developed a SP while receiving non-invasive respiratory support, after a median of 6 days [4-12] from ICU admission. The proportion of patients requiring IMV was similar. However, the time to tracheal intubation was longer in patients with SP (6 days [5-13] vs. 2 days [1-4]; P = 0.00002), with a higher first-line use of non-invasive ventilation (n = 11; 52% vs. n = 150; 28%; P = 0.02). The 21 patients who developed a SP had persisting signs of severe lung disease and respiratory failure with lower ROX index between ICU admission and occurrence of SP (3.94 [3.15-5.55] at admission vs. 3.25 [2.73-4.02] the day preceding SP; P = 0.1), which may underline potential indirect signals of Patient-self inflicted lung injury (P-SILI).In this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of SP without IMV was not uncommon, affecting 4% of patients. They received more often vasopressors and had a longer ICU length of stay, as compared with their counterparts. One pathophysiological mechanism may potentially be carried out by P-SILI related to a prolonged respiratory failure, as underlined by a delayed use of IMV and the evolution of the ROX index between ICU admission and the day preceding SP.

Lessons learned in mechanical ventilation/oxygen support in COVID19

The clinical spectrum of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection or mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, with severe cases leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multiorgan involvement. The clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) changed over the course of the pandemic, being adjusted as more evidence became available. This article will review how the ventilatory management of COVID-19 ARDS evolved and will conclude with current evidence-based recommendations.

Fluid restriction management in the treatment of COVID-19: a single-center observational study

The relationship between fluid management and the severity of illness, duration of treatment, and outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not fully understood. This study aimed to evaluate whether weight change during hospitalization was associated with COVID-19 severity, length of hospital stay, and route of admission. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of fluid restriction management in patients with severe COVID-19. COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital between July 2020 and October 2021 were analyzed. Patients were treated with standard drug therapy based on the Japanese guidelines and respiratory support according to the severity of the disease. Early enteral nutrition, defecation management, and anticoagulation therapy were also administered. Fluid restriction management was performed using furosemide and continuous renal replacement therapy as needed unless hemodynamic instability or hyperlactatemia was present. Patient background, route of admission (ambulance, A; transfer, T), weight at admission and discharge, the severity of illness (oxygen therapy, G1; mechanical ventilation, G2; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, G3), in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay were analyzed. There were 116 subjects: G1 (n = 48), G2 (n = 43), and G3 (n = 25), with ages (median [IQR]) of 58 (47-70), 65 (53-71.5), 56 (51-62) years, 40 (83.3%), 31 (72.1%), and 19 (76.0%) males, respectively. Hospital stays were 4.5 (2-7), 10 (7-16), and 18 (15-26) days, and the in-hospital mortality rates were 0 (0%), 7 (16.3%), and 8 (32%), respectively. Body mass index on admission was 26 (23.1-30.2), 27.1 (22.7-31.1), and 31.5 (27.1-33.1) kg/m2, and weight loss during admission was 1.1 (0-2.9), 4.6 (2.3-5.7), 9.2 (5.6-10.5) kg (P < 0.001, Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Weight loss in the severe group (G2 + G3) was 3.4 (0.5-5.8) kg [A, n = 12] and 5.6 (4.4-9) kg [T, n = 43] [P = 0.026, Mann-Whitney U test]. The lengths of hospital stay were 5 (2-7), 9 (7-15), and 18 (12-26) days [P < 0.001, Jonckheere-Terpstra test]. In our fluid restriction management, patients with severe COVID-19 had significant longer hospital length of stay, weight loss, especially those who were transferred to the hospital.

Experiences and challenges faced by patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalised and participated in a randomised controlled trial: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

As part of a randomised controlled trial, this qualitative study aimed to identify experiences and challenges of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 during illness and treatment (objective 1: COVID-19-related perspectives; objective 2: trial participation-related perspectives).

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews following a prespecified interview guide, transcribed verbatim and analysed in accordance with the grounded theory process. Investigator triangulation served to ensure rigour of the analysis.

SETTING

Interviews were embedded in a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label platform trial testing efficacy and safety of experimental therapeutics for patients with COVID-19 (Austrian Corona Virus Adaptive Clinical Trial).

PARTICIPANTS

20 patients (60±15 years) providing 21 interviews from 8 June 2020 to 25 April 2021.

RESULTS

Qualitative data analysis revealed four central themes with subthemes. Theme 1, 'A Severe Disease', related to objective 1, was characterised by subthemes 'symptom burden', 'unpredictability of the disease course', 'fear of death' and 'long-term aftermaths with lifestyle consequences'. Theme 2, 'Saved and Burdened by Hospitalization', related to objective 1, comprised patients describing their in-hospital experience as 'safe haven' versus 'place of fear', highlighting the influence of 'isolation'. Theme 3, 'Managing One's Own Health', related to objective 1, showed how patients relied on 'self-management' and 'coping' strategies. Theme 4, 'Belief in Medical Research', related to objective 2, captured patients' 'motivation for study participation', many expressing 'information gaps' and 'situational helplessness' in response to study inclusion, while fewer mentioned 'therapy side-effects' and provided 'study reflection'. Investigator triangulation with an expert focus group of three doctors who worked at the study centre confirmed the plausibility of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Several of the identified themes (2, 3, 4) are modifiable and open for interventions to improve care of patients with COVID-19. Patient-specific communication and information is of utmost importance during clinical trial participation, and was criticised by participants of the present study. Disease self-management should be actively encouraged.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04351724.

Effect of intravenous almitrine on intubation or mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7.

METHODS

In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg^-1.min^-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457.

FINDINGS

Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7.

FUNDING

Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm.

INTERPRETATION

Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: diagnosis, outcomes, long-term sequelae, and management

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging, which is not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload. ARDS is defined by the Berlin criteria. In this Series paper the diagnosis, management, outcomes, and long-term sequelae of ARDS are reviewed. Potential limitations of the ARDS definition and evidence that could inform future revisions are considered. Guideline recommendations, evidence, and uncertainties in relation to ARDS management are discussed. The future of ARDS strives towards a precision medicine approach, and the framework of treatable traits in ARDS diagnosis and management is explored.

Reply to: Effect of prone positioning without mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure

We have read the letter by Yanfei Shen and co-workers, and appreciate their interest in our study of awake prone positioning (APP) in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We would like to add a few comments to their purposeful remarks.

Several questions on the efficacy of awake prone positioning for hypoxaemic respiratory failure remain unanswered. Research targeting those questions is needed. https://bit.ly/3xmbNPP

Clinical Outcomes of Routine Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged, proning had been demonstrated to improve oxygenation in those with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and be performed in non-intensive care settings. This benefit was further exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to awake prone positioning (APP). We assessed the efficacy of routine APP versus standard care in preventing death and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in non-intubated hypoxic COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were used from January 1st, 2020, to January 15th, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Routine APP group were encouraged to be self-prone, whereas the standard care group received care according to local clinical practice and allowed APP crossover as rescue therapy. We included eight COVID-19 RCTs assessing 809 APP vs. 822 standard care patients. APP group had less IMV requirement (26.5% vs. 30.9%; OR - odds ratio 0.77; P=0.03) than the standard care group, with subgroup analysis showing greater benefit (32.5% vs. 39.1%; OR 0.75; P=0.02) for those mainly requiring oxygen support of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The time to IMV initiation was similar (mean 8.3 vs. 10.0 days; P=0.66) for patients requiring NIMV and HFNC. Patients mainly receiving supplemental oxygen and non-rebreather masks had improved oxygenation parameters, although not statistically significant. Other outcomes involving all-cause hospital mortality, hospital and ICU (intensive care unit) length of stay, and adverse events were comparable. APP appeared to be an important modality for reducing IMV requirements, especially in those requiring NIMV and HFNC.

Application of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Background: During the first wave of COVID-19, the large influx of severely ill patients led to insufficient availability of beds in intensive care units and a shortage of ventilators. The shortage of ventilators, high mortality of intubated patients, and high risk of infections among healthcare workers involved in intubation were the main factors that led to the prevalence of noninvasive respiratory support during the pandemic. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a commonly used, popular form of noninvasive respiratory support. Due to its unique physiological effects, HFNC can provide a high fraction of humidified oxygen and is satisfactorily comfortable for patients with COVID-19. However, before the COVID-19 era, there was little evidence on the application of HFNC in patients with acute respiratory failure caused by viral infection. Aim: This narrative review provides an overview of recent studies on the use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main topics discussed include the probability of successful use of HFNC in these patients, whether late intubation increases mortality, the availability of convenient and accurate monitoring tools, comparison of HFNC with other types of noninvasive respiratory support, whether HFNC combined with the prone position is more clinically useful, and strategies to further reduce the infection risk associated with HFNC. The implication of this study is to identify some of the limitations and research gaps of the current literature and to give some advice for future research.

Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

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.

Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) has been widely used in non-intubated COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. However, high-quality evidence to support its use in severe COVID-19 patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) is inadequate. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of APP for intubation requirements and other important outcomes in this patient population.

Methods

We searched for potentially relevant articles in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception to May 25, 2022. Studies focusing on COVID-19 adults in ICU who received APP compared to controls were included. The primary outcome was the intubation requirement. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ICU stay, and adverse events. Study quality was independently assessed, and we also conducted subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias to explore the potential influence factors.

Results

Ten randomized controlled trials with 1,686 patients were eligible. The quality of the included studies was low to moderate. Overall, the intubation rate was 35.2% in the included patients. The mean daily APP duration ranged from &lt;6 to 9 h, with poor adherence to APP protocols. When pooling, APP significantly reduced intubation requirement (risk ratio [RR] 0.84; 95%CI, 0.74–0.95; I2 = 0%, P = 0.007). Subgroup analyses confirmed the reduced intubation rates in patients who were older (≥60 years), obese, came from a high mortality risk population (&gt;20%), received HFNC/NIV, had lower SpO2/FiO2 (&lt;150 mmHg), or undergone longer duration of APP (≥8 h). However, APP showed no beneficial effect on mortality (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.77–1.10; I2 = 0%, P = 0.37] and length of ICU stay (mean difference = −0.58 days; 95% CI, −2.49 to 1.32; I2 = 63%; P = 0.55).

Conclusion

APP significantly reduced intubation requirements in ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without affecting the outcomes of mortality and ICU stay. Further studies with better APP protocol adherence will be needed to define the subgroup of patients most likely to benefit from this strategy.

COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Prognosis

COVID-19 is characterized by a severe course in approximately 5‒10% of patients, who require admittance to the intensive care unit and mechanical ventilation, which is associated with a very high risk of a poor prognosis. At present, in real clinical practice, in managing severe patients with COVID-19, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely used (in some countries, up to 60% of all methods of respiratory support). In most studies on the effectiveness of NIV in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19, the need for tracheal intubation and hospital mortality with the use of NIV averaged 20-30%, which suggests the rather high efficiency of this method. The COVID-19 pandemic has given a powerful impetus to the widespread use of prone positioning among nonintubated patients with acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Several studies have shown that prone positioning can reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality. Medications that have proven effective in severe forms of COVID-19 include remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids, tocilizumab, baricitinib, and anticoagulants. Among the new promising areas of drug therapy, noteworthy is the use of thiol-containing drugs (N-acetylcysteine), inhaled surfactant, and inhaled prostacyclin analogues.

Respiratory Intensive Care Unit management and efficacy during the COVID-19 outbreak in Naples, Italy

The World Health Organization declared the Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. COVID-19 had an impact on over 500 million people worldwide. According to the American Thoracic Society criteria, the respiratory spectrum of this disease ranges from mild illness to severe pneumonia, with the latter occurring in a not insignificant 15% of patients. A rapid increase in the incidence of COVID-19 pneumonia cases has been observed all over the world, resulting in a saturation of the Intensive Care Unit's capacity (ICUs). Because of this impressive outbreak, the ICU beds and invasive mechanical ventilators reached their capacity. Non-invasive supportive care has become an important option for keeping respiratory conditions under control. As a result, proper healthcare resource management was required to ensure adequate patient care. Respiratory Intensive Care Units (RICUs) have become a useful resource for managing complex patients due to a shortage of ICU capacity. This highlighted the importance of RICUs, where patients with moderate to severe respiratory failure can be treated with non-invasive respiratory support rather than being admitted to the ICU. The clinical outcomes and baseline characteristics of patients admitted to the RICU of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Naples (Italy), from January 2021 to October 2021 are described in this report.

Advances in Ventilator Management for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

The ventilatory care of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is evolving as our understanding of physiologic mechanisms of respiratory failure improves. Despite several decades of research, the mortality rate for ARDS remains high. Over the years, we continue to expand strategies to identify and mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury. This now includes a greater understanding of the benefits and harms associated with spontaneous breathing.

Nurse-led implementation of awake prone positioning

This article discusses the pathophysiology of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the evidence supporting the use of awake prone positioning (APP) for adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS cared for in acute care medical units, and a quality improvement initiative to support a standardized APP process on a COVID-19 medical unit.

A Bench Comparison of the Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Devices on Work of Breathing

BACKGROUND

Oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of devices has also increased. We conducted this study to answer the following questions: Do HFNC devices differ from the original device for work of breathing (WOB) and generated PEEP?

METHODS

Seven devices were tested on ASL 5000 lung model. Compliance was set to 40 mL/cm H₂O and resistance to 10 cm H₂O/L/s. The devices were connected to a manikin head via a nasal cannula with F_IO2 set at 0.21. The measurements were performed at baseline (manikin head free of nasal cannula) and then with the cannula and the device attached with oxygen flow set at 20, 40, and 60 L/min. WOB and PEEP were assessed at 3 simulated inspiratory efforts (-5, -10, -15 cm H₂O muscular pressure) and at 2 breathing frequencies (20 and 30 breaths/min). Data were expressed as median (first-third quartiles) and compared with nonparametric tests to the Optiflow device taken as reference.

RESULTS

Baseline WOB and PEEP were comparable between devices. Over all the conditions tested, WOB was 4.2 (1.0-9.4) J/min with the reference device, and the relative variations from it were 0, -3 (2-4), 1 (0-1), -2 (1-2), -1 (1-2), and -1 (1-2)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). PEEP was 0.9 (0.3-1.5) cm H₂O with Optiflow, and the relative differences were -28 (22-33), -41 (38-46), -30 (26-36), -31 (28-34), -37 (32-42), and -24 (21-34)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test).

CONCLUSIONS

WOB was marginally higher and PEEP marginally lower with devices as compared to the reference device.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning in non-Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) has been considered as a feasible treatment for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of APP remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effect of APP on intubation rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure.

Methods

Relevant studies published from January 1, 2020, to June 17, 2022, were systematically searched. The primary outcomes were the intubation rate and mortality; the secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events.

Results

Of 5746 identified publications, 22 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (N = 5146 patients). In comparison to the non-APP group, APP could decrease the intubation rates (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.83; P = .001), particularly in the subgroup of the daily median duration of APP > 8 h and in the subgroup of receiving high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Patients treated with APP were associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; P = .0008), but no mortality benefit was found in the APP group in the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.71; P = .56).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated that APP could be an effective strategy to avoid intubation without detrimental effects in non-intubated patients with COVID-19, especially for patients requiring HFNC or NIV, and the daily APP duration with the target of minimally eight hours was suggested. In the subgroup of RCTs, the pooled results did not demonstrate any benefit of APP on mortality. Given the limited number of RCTs, further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the results.

INPLASY registration number

INPLASY2021110037.

Management and outcomes of pregnant women admitted to intensive care unit for severe pneumonia related to SARS-CoV-2 infection: the multicenter and international COVIDPREG study

Purpose

Management and outcomes of pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) remain to be investigated.

Methods

A retrospective multicenter study conducted in 32 ICUs in France, Belgium and Switzerland. Maternal management as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes were reported.

Results

Among the 187 pregnant women with COVID-19 (33 ± 6 years old and 28 ± 7 weeks’ gestation), 76 (41%) were obese, 12 (6%) had diabetes mellitus and 66 (35%) had pregnancy-related complications. Standard oxygenation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) were used as the only oxygenation technique in 41 (22%), 55 (29%) and 18 (10%) patients, respectively, and 73 (39%) were intubated. Overall, 72 (39%) patients required several oxygenation techniques and 15 (8%) required venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Corticosteroids and tocilizumab were administered in 157 (84%) and 25 (13%) patients, respectively. Awake prone positioning or prone positioning was performed in 49 (26%) patients. In multivariate analysis, risk factors for intubation were obesity (cause-specific hazard ratio (CSH) 2.00, 95% CI (1.05–3.80), p = 0.03), term of pregnancy (CSH 1.07, 95% CI (1.02–1.10), per + 1 week gestation, p = 0.01), extent of computed tomography (CT) scan abnormalities > 50% (CSH 2.69, 95% CI (1.30–5.60), p < 0.01) and NIV use (CSH 2.06, 95% CI (1.09–3.90), p = 0.03). Delivery was required during ICU stay in 70 (37%) patients, mainly due to maternal respiratory worsening, and improved the driving pressure and oxygenation. Maternal and fetal/neonatal mortality rates were 1% and 4%, respectively. The rate of maternal and/or neonatal complications increased with the invasiveness of maternal respiratory support.

Conclusion

In ICU, corticosteroids, tocilizumab and prone positioning were used in few pregnant women with COVID-19. Over a third of patients were intubated and delivery improved the driving pressure.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06833-8.

Prone position reduces the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 progressing to severe or even critical cases: a retrospective study

Background

To investigate whether prone position can reduce the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who progress to severe or critical illness.

Methods

The prone position group was treated in prone position on the day of admission in addition to conventional treatment. Indicators such as saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO₂), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and prone position-related adverse events were recorded before prone ventilation, 5 min after prone position and 30 min after prone position. Meanwhile, the cases of severe and critical patients, the percentage of transformation and the final clinical outcome of this group were analyzed. Conversion rates and mortality were calculated for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 retrieved from the database who received only conventional care without combined prone positioning as control group.

Results

(1) A total of 34 patients were included in prone position group. There were significant differences in SpO₂ between the first 4 days after admission and the day of discharge (F = 3.17, P < 0.001). (2) The main complications were back and neck muscle soreness (55.9%), followed by abdominal distension (8.9%). (3) In control group, a total of 4873 cases of mild and moderate patients were included from 19 literatures, with an average deterioration rate of 22.7% and mortality rate of 1.7%. (4) In prone position group, there were no severe or critical transformation cases and also no death cases. The prone position group had a significantly lower deterioration rate when compared with the control group (χ² = 9.962, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Prone position improves SpO₂ in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. It can also reduce the percentage of mild or moderate patients progressing to severe or critical patients. The application of prone position is a simple, feasible, safe and effective treatment method in such patients.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Airway and resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures <30 cm H₂O. Limited data support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NBMA), recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

CONCLUSION

This review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

COVID-19 Lessons Learned: Prone Positioning With and Without Invasive Ventilation

Prone positioning (PP) has been used extensively for patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that PP was beneficial during the pandemic, as it improves oxygenation and might improve chances of survival, especially in those with a continuum of positive oxygenation responses to the procedure. Additionally, the pandemic drove innovation regarding PP, as it brought attention to awake PP (APP) and the value of an interdisciplinary team approach to PP during a pandemic. APP appears to be safe and effective at improving oxygenation; APP may also reduce the need for intubation in patients requiring advanced respiratory support like high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation. Teams specifically assembled for PP during a pandemic also appear useful and can provide needed assistance to bedside clinicians in the time of crisis. Complications associated with PP can be mitigated, and a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the incidence of complications is recommended.

Does awake prone positioning prevent the use of mechanical respiratory support or death in COVID-19 patients on standard oxygen therapy hospitalised in general wards? A multicentre randomised controlled trial: the PROVID-19 protocol

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is responsible of severe hypoxaemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning improves oxygenation and survival in sedated mechanically patients with ARDS not related to COVID-19. Awake prone positioning is a simple and safe technique which improves oxygenation in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesised that early prone positioning in COVID-19 patients breathing spontaneously in medical wards could decrease the rates of intubation or need for noninvasive ventilation or death.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PROVID-19 is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre randomised, controlled, superiority trial comparing awake prone positioning to standard of care in hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients in 20 medical wards in France and Monaco. Patients are randomised to receive either awake prone position plus usual care or usual care alone with stratification on centres, body mass index and severity of hypoxaemia.The study objective is to compare the rate of treatment failure defined as a composite endpoint comprising the need for non-invasive ventilation (at two pressure levels) or for intubation or death, between the intervention group (awake prone position plus usual care) and the usual care (usual care alone) group at 28 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol and amendments have been approved by the ethics committees (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest VI, France, no 1279 HPS2 and Comité Consultatif d'Ethique en matière de Recherche Biomédicale, Monaco, no 2020.8894 AP/jv), and patients are included after written informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04363463.