Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Understanding the Evolving Pathophysiology of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Adult Nursing Management

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in December 2019 and quickly became a global pandemic. The understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and management of the disease has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. COVID-19 can be complicated by immune system dysfunction, lung injury with hypoxemia, acute kidney injury, and coagulopathy. The treatment and management of COVID-19 is based on the severity of illness, ranging from asymptomatic to severe and often life-threatening disease. The 3 main recommended medication classes include antivirals, immunomodulators, and anticoagulants. Other supportive therapies include ensuring adequate oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and prone positioning.

A randomised clinical trial of awake prone positioning in COVID-19 suspects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Background

Awake prone position (APP) has been reported to improve oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 disease and to reduce the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation for patients requiring support with high flow nasal cannula. There is conflicting data for patients requiring lower-level oxygen support.

Research question

Does APP reduce escalation of oxygen support in COVID-19 patients requiring supplementary oxygen?The primary outcome was defined as an escalation of oxygen support from simple supplementary oxygen (NP, HM, NRB) to NIV (CPAP or BiPAP), HFNC or IMV; OR from NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) or HFNC to IMV by day30.

Study design

Two center, prospective, non-blind, randomised controlled trial. Patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ≥ 5 liters/min oxygen to maintain saturations ≥ 94 % were randomised to either APP or control group. The APP group received a 3-h APP session three times per day for three days.

Results

Between 9 May and July 13, 2021, 89 adults were screened and 61 enrolled, 31 to awake prone position and 30 controls. There was no difference in the primary outcome, 7 (22.6 %) patients randomised to APP and 9 (30.0 %) controls required escalation of oxygen support (OR 0.68 (0.22-2.14), P = 0.51). There were no differences in any secondary outcomes, in APP did not improve oxygenation.

Interpretation

In COVID-19 patients, the use of APP did not prevent escalation of oxygen support from supplementary to invasive or non-invasive ventilation or improve patient respiratory physiology.

Trial registration

NCT04853979 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Conscious prone positioning in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

METHODS

We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.

RESULTS

We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.

Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of awake prone positioning (aPP) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of aPP in acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies reporting on the clinical course of patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 treated or not treated by aPP were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (ProsperoID: CRD42022333211). The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation; the individual components of the primary outcome were secondary study outcomes. The composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation was available for 6 studies (1884 patients), five randomized and one prospective; a significant reduction in the risk of this outcome was observed in patients treated vs. not treated by aPP (33.5% vs. 39.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; I2 0%). In-hospital death was reported in 34 studies (6808 patients) and occurred in 17.4% vs. 23.5% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (random effect OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79; I2 59%); orotracheal intubation was observed in 25.8% vs. 32.7% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (27 studies, 5369 patients; random effect OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.27; I2 84%). aPP reduces the risk for death or orotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the clinical benefit of aPP outside the ICU.Registration Prospero ID: CRD42022333211.

Importance of timing and training to implement awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19: a single-center prospective observational study

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) is broadly implemented in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 related disease [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] admitted to hospital with severe respiratory distress syndrome. This prospective observational study aimed to explore the factors influencing the implementation of APP in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Methods

Patients with COVID-19, all hospitalized with positive X-ray findings and oxygen supplementation requirement, in the Respiratory Step-Down Unit of the Peking University Third Hospital between January 6th, 2023, and January 20th, 2023, were included in this study. Data regarding basic information, activities of daily living (ADLs) scores, oxygen therapy, vital signs, and duration of APP were collected to investigate the factors influencing prone positioning.

Results

Among the 134 patients included, 55.2% showed an improvement in oxygen saturation 1 hour after APP. Logistic regression revealed that the pre-APP heart rate (HR) [odds ratio (OR) =1.032; P=0.046] and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (OR =0.720; P<0.001) were the associated factors of the improvement in SpO2 after treatment. Multiple linear regression revealed that the ADL scores and pre-APP respiratory rate (RR) were the associated factors of the duration of prone positioning (P<0.01). The APP technical steering group effectively improved duration of APP.

Conclusions

Patients with low SpO2 and increased HR before treatment showed greater improvement in oxygen saturation. Patients with lower tolerance to ADL but lower RRs were those to demonstrate a longer duration of prone positioning. This is pointing towards establishing the most favorable time window for APP during the course of COVID-19: after the ADLs have already decreased, but before significant tachypnea has appeared.

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: An international expert guidance

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning (APP) of non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) has been inconsistently adopted into routine care of patients with COVID-19, likely due to apparent conflicting evidence from recent trials. This short guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of APP in various clinical scenarios.

METHODS

An international multidisciplinary panel, assembled for their expertise and representativeness, and supported by a methodologist, performed a systematic literature search, summarized the available evidence derived from randomized clinical trials, and developed recommendations using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology.

RESULTS

The panel strongly recommends that APP rather than standard supine care be used in patients with COVID-19 receiving advanced respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure or non-invasive ventilation). Due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials, the panel provides no recommendation on the use of APP in patients with COVID-19 supported with conventional oxygen therapy, nor in patients with AHRF due to causes other than COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

APP should be routinely implemented in patients with COVID-19 receiving advanced respiratory support.

Prone versus lateral position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients with HFNO therapy: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled open-label trial

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is a leading treatment technique for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but its treatment failure rate remains high. The awake prone position (APP) has been proven to increase oxygenation and reduce the endotracheal intubation rate in patients with COVID-19-induced AHRF. However, the APP is poorly tolerated in patients, and its performance in improving prognoses is controversial. The lateral position has a similar mechanism and effect to the prone position, but it is more tolerable than the prone position. Therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lateral position is better for awake patients with AHRF.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a three-arm parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled open-label exploratory trial. A total of 583 patients from two hospitals in Chongqing, China, will be randomised to take the semi-recumbent position, lateral position, or prone position at a ratio of 1:1:1. Patients are all diagnosed with AHRF secondary to non-COVID-19 pneumonia or lung infection and receiving HFNO therapy. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days in 28 days. The secondary outcomes are the 28-day intubation rate, 28-day all-cause mortality, total position change time, the incidence of adverse events, number of hours using HFNO therapy, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and others. We will conduct subgroup analyses on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspiration oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (> 200 mmHg or ≤ 200 mmHg), time from admission to intervention implementation (< 24 h or ≥ 24 h), position changing time, and different diagnoses.

DISCUSSION

This trial will explore the prognostic effects of the APP with that of the lateral position in awake patients with non-COVID-19AHRF and compare the differences between them. To provide evidence for clinical decision-making and further research on position management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number is ChiCTR2200055822 . Registered on January 20, 2022.

Effects of awake-prone positioning on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning is a well-known supportive approach for increasing oxygenation and reducing mortality in non-COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, studies highlighting the effects of proning in patients with COVID-19 are limited.

AIM

To investigate the effects of awake-prone positioning (APP) on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was carried out with two parallel groups at 1:1 ratio. Adult awake non-intubated patients with confirmed COVID-19, non-rebreathing face mask or continuous positive airway pressure, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio ≤150 mmHg were randomly assigned to the APP group or control group. The control group was subjected to conventional positioning interventions. Outcome measures were PaO2 /FiO2 ratio, ROX index, PaO2 , PaCO2 , SaO2 , respiratory rate, blood pressure, and shock index. These parameters were recorded immediately before positioning, 10 min after patient positioning, and 1 h after patient positioning.

RESULTS

Of 115 patients assessed for eligibility, 82 were randomized to the APP group or control group (41 patients in each group). The use of APP for non-intubated patients with COVID-19 resulted in statistically significant improvements in oxygenation parameters, that is, SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 , at the three study time points (p = .000, .007, .000, .011, and .000 respectively). The SpO2 was increased to 92.15 ± 2.735 mmHg for the APP group versus 88.17 ± 4.847 for the control group after 1 h of patients' positioning. The PaO2 /FiO2 ratio increased in the APP group before proning compared with 1 h after proning (79.95 ± 22.508 vs. 98.91 ± 34.44) respectively. APP improved the SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 values for the APP group, representing an increase of 5.85%, 23.71%, 30.79%, 22.59%, and 5.26%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Awake proning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 showed marked improvement in oxygenation and physiological parameters.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study provides evidence for critical care nurses to implement APP in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 to improve oxygenation and physiological parameters, as it was tolerated by most of the patients without serious adverse events.

Prone Positioning for Patients With COVID-19-Induced Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Flipping the Script

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone positioning (PP) emerged as a widely used supportive therapy for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 infection. In particular, awake PP (APP)-the placement of non-intubated patients in the prone position-has gained popularity and hence is detailed first herein. This review discusses recent publications on the use of PP for non-intubated and intubated subjects with COVID-19, highlighting the physiological responses, clinical outcomes, influential factors affecting treatment success, and strategies to improve adherence with APP. The use of prolonged PP and the use of PP for patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are also presented.

Effect of awake prone positioning on tracheal intubation rates in patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Purpose

We investigated the effect of awake prone positioning on endotracheal intubation rates in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 not undergoing endotracheal intubation.

Methods

We searched the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PUBMED, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases until December 31, 2022. Prospective randomized controlled, cohort, and case-control studies were included. A meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcome measure, tracheal intubation rates, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Ten studies with a total of 2641 patients were included. The tracheal intubation rate in the awake prone position was 34% (95%CI: 0.59-1.10; P = 0.18; I2 = 55%), showing a non-significant benefit. Mortality was lower in prone-positioned than in supine-positioned patients (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.93; P = 0.007; I2 = 46%), prone positioning significantly improved the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference -29.17; 95%CI: -50.91 to -7.43; P = 0.009; I2 = 44%).

Conclusions

Prone positioning can improve the PaO2/FIO2 ratio in patients with COVID-19 but we found no significant effect on tracheal intubation rates. Awake prone positioning seems to be associated with lower mortality, however, and may thus be a beneficial and effective intervention for patients with COVID-19. The optimal timing, duration, and target population need to be determined in future studies.

How to Conduct a Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to produce the highest level of evidence in the original studies that informs the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). By manipulating an independent variable to study its impact on the outcome, RCTs establish causal relationships and provide valuable insights into clinical treatment. To improve patient outcomes and optimize the use of clinical resources, the practice of EBM plays a crucial role in designing and conducting RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. This review aims to explore the essential steps involved in conducting a rigorous and reliable RCT, ensuring the generation of high-quality evidence.

Severity-onset prediction of COVID-19 via artificial-intelligence analysis of multivariate factors

Progression to a severe condition remains a major risk factor for the COVID-19 mortality. Robust models that predict the onset of severe COVID-19 are urgently required to support sensitive decisions regarding patients and their treatments. In this study, we developed a multivariate survival model based on early-stage CT images and other physiological indicators and biomarkers using artificial-intelligence analysis to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 onset. We retrospectively enrolled 338 adult patients admitted to a hospital in China (severity rate, 31.9%; mortality rate, 0.9%). The physiological and pathological characteristics of the patients with severe and non-severe outcomes were compared. Age, body mass index, fever symptoms upon admission, coexisting hypertension, and diabetes were the risk factors for severe progression. Compared with the non-severe group, the severe group demonstrated abnormalities in biomarkers indicating organ function, inflammatory responses, blood oxygen, and coagulation function at an early stage. In addition, by integrating the intuitive CT images, the multivariable survival model showed significantly improved performance in predicting the onset of severe disease (mean time-dependent area under the curve = 0.880). Multivariate survival models based on early-stage CT images and other physiological indicators and biomarkers have shown high potential for predicting the onset of severe COVID-19.

Early prone positioning does not improve the outcome of patients with mild pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2: results from an open-label randomised controlled trial - the EPCoT study

Background

Prone positioning is routinely used among patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. However, its utility among spontaneously breathing patients is still debated.

Methods

In an open-label randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients hospitalised with mild COVID-19 pneumonia, whose arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio (PaO2/FIO2) was >200 mmHg and who did not require mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure at hospital admission. Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning on top of standard of care (intervention group) versus standard of care only (controls). The primary composite outcome included death, mechanical ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and PaO2/FIO2 <200 mmHg; secondary outcomes were oxygen weaning and hospital discharge.

Results

A total of 61 subjects were enrolled, 29 adjudicated to prone positioning and 32 to the control group. By day 28, 24 out of 61 patients (39.3%) met the primary outcome: 16 because of a PaO2/FIO2 ratio <200 mmHg, five because of the need for continuous positive airway pressure and three because of the need for mechanical ventilation. Three patients died. Using an intention-to-treat approach, 15 out of 29 patients in the prone positioning group versus nine out of 32 controls met the primary outcome, corresponding to a significantly higher risk of progression among those randomised to prone positioning (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.04-5.43; p=0.040). Using an as-treated approach, which included in the intervention group only patients who maintained prone positioning for ≥3 h·day-1, no significant differences were found between the two groups (HR 1.77, 95% CI 0.79-3.94; p=0.165). Also, we did not find any statistically significant difference in terms of time to oxygen weaning or hospital discharge between study arms in any of the analyses conducted.

Conclusions

We observed no clinical benefit from prone positioning among spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring conventional oxygen therapy.

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Awake prone positioning (APP) of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure gained considerable attention during the early phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, reports of APP were limited to case series in patients with influenza and in immunocompromised patients, with encouraging results in terms of tolerance and oxygenation improvement. Prone positioning of awake patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to result in many of the same physiological changes improving oxygenation seen in invasively ventilated patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A number of randomised controlled studies published on patients with varying severity of COVID-19 have reported apparently contrasting outcomes. However, there is consistent evidence that more hypoxaemic patients requiring advanced respiratory support, who are managed in higher care environments and who can be prone for several hours, benefit most from APP use. We review the physiological basis by which prone positioning results in changes in lung mechanics and gas exchange and summarise the latest evidence base for APP primarily in COVID-19. We examine the key factors that influence the success of APP, the optimal target populations for APP and the key unknowns that will shape future research.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxic respiratory failure: a systematic review based on eight high-quality randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning has been widely used in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19, but the evidence is mostly from observational studies and low-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with conflicting results from published studies. A systematic review of published high-quality RCTs to resolve the controversy over the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with AHRF due to COVID-19.

METHODS

Candidate studies were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus databases from December 1, 2019 to November 1, 2022. Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by two researchers.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 2657 patients were included. Meta-analysis of fixed effects models showed that awake prone positioning did not increase mortality(OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.72, 1.08]), length of stay in ICU (WMD = 1.14, 95%CI [-0.45, 2.72]), total length of stay (WMD = 0.11, 95%CI [-1.02, 1.23]), or incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.79, 1.31]) compared with usual care, but significantly reduced the intubation rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI [0.60, 0.86]). Similar results were found in a subgroup analysis of patients who received only high flow nasal cannula (Mortality: OR = 0.86, 95%CI [0.70, 1.05]; Intubation rate: OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.58, 0.83]). All eight RCTs had high quality of evidence, which ensured the reliability of the meta-analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone positioning is safe and feasible in non-intubated patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19, and can significantly reduce the intubation rate. More studies are needed to explore standardized implementation strategies for the awake prone positioning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023394113.

Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Benefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days.

RESULTS

Median time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.

High flow nasal oxygen and awake prone positioning - Two allies against COVID-19: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus disease-2 (SARS-CoV-2) can lead to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) with possible multisystemic involvement. Ventilation/perfusion mismatch and shunt increase are critical determinants of hypoxemia. Understanding hypoxemia and the mechanisms involved in its genesis is essential to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy. High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and awake prone positioning (APP) in patients with COVID-19 AHRF showed promising benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to depict current situation around the combined use of HFNO and APP in patients with COVID-19 AHRF. Particularly, to investigate and report the pathophysiological rationale for adopting this strategy and to evaluate the (1) criteria for initiation, (2) timing, monitoring and discontinuation, and to assess the (3) impact of HFNO/ APP on outcome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search collecting the articles present in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases with the following keywords: COVID-19 pneumonia, high flow nasal oxygen, awake prone position ventilation.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies displayed inclusion criteria and were included, accounting for 1242 patients who received HFNO/ APP. The combination of HFNO/ APP has an encouraging pathophysiological rationale for implementing this technique. The recognition of patients who can benefit from HFNO/ APP is difficult and there are no validated protocols to start, monitoring, and discontinue HFNO/ APP therapy. The most used method to monitor the efficacy and failure of this combined technique are oxygenation indexes, but discontinuation techniques are inconsistently and poorly described limiting possible generatability. Finally, this technique provided no clear benefits on outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic search provided positive feedbacks for improving the utilization of this combination technique, although we still need further investigation about methods to guide timing, management, and discontinuation, and to assess the intervention effect on outcome.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Antibiotic Choice On ReNal outcomes (ACORN) randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotics are time-critical in the management of sepsis. When infectious organisms are unknown, patients are treated with empiric antibiotics to include coverage for gram-negative organisms, such as antipseudomonal cephalosporins and penicillins. However, in observational studies, some antipseudomonal cephalosporins (eg, cefepime) are associated with neurologic dysfunction while the most common antipseudomonal penicillin (piperacillin-tazobactam) is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). No randomised control trials have compared these regimens. This manuscript describes the protocol and analysis plan for a trial designed to compare the effects of antipseudomonal cephalosporins and antipseudomonal penicillins among acutely ill patients receiving empiric antibiotics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Antibiotic Choice On ReNal outcomes trial is a prospective, single-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The trial will enrol 2500 acutely ill adults receiving gram-negative coverage for treatment of infection. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to receive cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam on first order entry of a broad-spectrum antibiotic covering gram-negative organisms. The primary outcome is the highest stage of AKI and death occurring between enrolment and 14 days after enrolment. This will be compared between patients randomised to cefepime and randomised to piperacillin-tazobactam using an unadjusted proportional odds regression model. The secondary outcomes are major adverse kidney events through day 14 and number of days alive and free of delirium and coma in 14 days after enrolment. Enrolment began on 10 November 2021 and is expected to be completed in December 2022.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center institutional review board (IRB#210591) with a waiver of informed consent. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05094154.

Prone Positioning for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: A Review

Prone positioning is an immediately accessible, readily implementable intervention that was proposed initially as a method for improvement in gas exchange > 50 years ago. Initially implemented clinically as an empiric therapy for refractory hypoxemia, multiple clinical trials were performed on the use of prone positioning in various respiratory conditions, cumulating in the landmark Proning Severe ARDS Patients trial, which demonstrated mortality benefit in patients with severe ARDS. After this trial and the corresponding meta-analysis, expert consensus and societal guidelines recommended the use of prone positioning for the management of severe ARDS. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought prone positioning to the forefront of medicine, including widespread implementation of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Multiple clinical trials now have been performed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of prone positioning in these patients and have enhanced our understanding of the effects of the prone position in respiratory failure. In this review, we discuss the physiologic features, clinical outcome data, practical considerations, and lingering questions of prone positioning.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Therapeutic advances in COVID-19

Over 2 years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives. Unlike the early days of the pandemic, when management decisions were based on extrapolations from in vitro data, case reports and case series, clinicians are now equipped with an armamentarium of therapies based on high-quality evidence. These treatments are spread across seven main therapeutic categories: anti-inflammatory agents, antivirals, antithrombotics, therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, anti-SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibody therapies, modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and vitamins. For each of these treatments, the patient population characteristics and clinical settings in which they were studied are important considerations. Although few direct comparisons have been performed, the evidence base and magnitude of benefit for anti-inflammatory and antiviral agents clearly outweigh those of other therapeutic approaches such as vitamins. The emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of much of the available evidence, particularly for antibody therapies. Importantly, patients with acute and chronic kidney disease were under-represented in many of the COVID-19 clinical trials, and outcomes in this population might differ from those reported in the general population. Here, we examine the clinical evidence for these therapies through a kidney medicine lens.

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 ).

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.

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.

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.

Care of the Seriously Ill Patient with SARS-CoV-2

In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 caused the greatest global health crisis in a century, impacting all aspects of society. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolved throughout 2020 and 2021, multiple variants emerged, contributing to multiple surges in cases of COVID-19 worldwide. In 2021, highly effective vaccines became available, although the pandemic continues into 2022. There has been tremendous expansion of basic, translational, and clinical knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 since the pandemic's onset. Treatment options have been rapidly explored, attempting to repurpose preexisting medications in tandem with development and evaluation of novel agents. Care of the seriously ill patient is examined.

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

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.

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.