Lateral positioning for critically ill adult patients

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel

A scientific panel was created consisting of 23 interdisciplinary and interprofessional experts in intensive care medicine, physiotherapy, nursing care, surgery, rehabilitative medicine, and pneumology delegated from scientific societies together with a patient representative and a delegate from the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies who advised methodological implementation. The guideline was created according to the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), based on The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. The topics of (early) mobilisation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, assist devices for mobilisation, and positioning, including prone positioning, were identified as areas to be addressed and assigned to specialist expert groups, taking conflicts of interest into account. The panel formulated PICO questions (addressing the population, intervention, comparison or control group as well as the resulting outcomes), conducted a systematic literature review with abstract screening and full-text analysis and created summary tables. This was followed by grading the evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and a risk of bias assessment. The recommendations were finalized according to GRADE and voted using an online Delphi process followed by a final hybrid consensus conference. The German long version of the guideline was approved by the professional associations. For this English version an update of the systematic review was conducted until April 2024 and recommendation adapted based on new evidence in systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. In total, 46 recommendations were developed and research gaps addressed.

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.

Positioning for acute respiratory distress in hospitalised infants and children

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a significant cause of hospitalisation and death in young children. Positioning and mechanical ventilation have been regularly used to reduce respiratory distress and improve oxygenation in hospitalised patients. Due to the association of prone positioning (lying on the abdomen) with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) within the first six months, it is recommended that young infants be placed on their back (supine). However, prone positioning may be a non-invasive way of increasing oxygenation in individuals with acute respiratory distress, and offers a more significant survival advantage in those who are mechanically ventilated. There are substantial differences in respiratory mechanics between adults and infants. While the respiratory tract undergoes significant development within the first two years of life, differences in airway physiology between adults and children become less prominent by six to eight years old. However, there is a reduced risk of SIDS during artificial ventilation in hospitalised infants. Thus, an updated review focusing on positioning for infants and young children with ARDS is warranted. This is an update of a review published in 2005, 2009, and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different body positions in hospitalised infants and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome aged between four weeks and 16 years.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from January 2004 to July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more positions for the management of infants and children hospitalised with ARDS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from each study. We resolved differences by consensus, or referred to a third contributor to arbitrate. We analysed bivariate outcomes using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We analysed continuous outcomes using a mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model, unless heterogeneity was significant (I² statistic > 50%), when we used a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials: four cross-over trials, and two parallel randomised trials, with 198 participants aged between 4 weeks and 16 years, all but 15 of whom were mechanically ventilated. Four trials compared prone to supine positions. One trial compared the prone position to good-lung dependent (where the person lies on the side of the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the right side), and independent (or non-good-lung independent, where the person lies on the opposite side to the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the left side) position. One trial compared good-lung independent to good-lung dependent positions. When the prone (with ventilators) and supine positions were compared, there was no information on episodes of apnoea or mortality due to respiratory events. There was no conclusive result in oxygen saturation (SaO_2; MD 0.40 mmHg, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.66; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low certainty evidence); blood gases, PCO₂ (MD 3.0 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 7.93; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence), or PO₂ (MD 2 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 9.29; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence); or lung function (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio; MD 28.16 mmHg, 95% CI -9.92 to 66.24; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, there was an improvement in oxygenation index (FiO₂% X M_PAW/ PaO₂) with prone positioning in both the parallel trials (MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.60 to -1.25; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence), and the cross-over study (MD -8.13, 95% CI -15.01 to -1.25; 1 study, 20 participants). Derived indices of respiratory mechanics, such as tidal volume, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were reported. There was an apparent decrease in tidal volume between prone and supine groups in a parallel study (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 1 study, 84 participants; very low certainty evidence). When prone and supine positions were compared in a cross-over study, there were no conclusive results in respiratory compliance (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.24; 1 study, 10 participants); changes in PEEP (MD -0.70 cm H₂O, 95% CI -2.72 to 1.32; 1 study, 10 participants); or resistance (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.04; 1 study, 10 participants). One study reported adverse events. There were no conclusive results for potential harm between groups in extubation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.54; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); obstructions of the endotracheal tube (OR 5.20, 95% CI 0.24 to 111.09; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); pressure ulcers (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.44; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); and hypercapnia (high levels of arterial carbon dioxide; OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.88; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) compared supine positions to good-lung dependent and independent positions. There was no conclusive evidence that PaO₂ was different between supine and good-lung dependent positioning (MD 3.44 mm Hg, 95% CI -23.12 to 30.00; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence). There was also no conclusive evidence for supine position and good-lung independent positioning (MD -2.78 mmHg, 95% CI -28.84, 23.28; 25 participants; very low certainty evidence); or between good-lung dependent and independent positioning (MD 6.22, 95% CI -21.25 to 33.69; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence). As most trials did not describe how possible biases were addressed, the potential for bias in these findings is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although included studies suggest that prone positioning may offer some advantage, there was little evidence to make definitive recommendations. There appears to be low certainty evidence that positioning improves oxygenation in mechanically ventilated children with ARDS. Due to the increased risk of SIDS with prone positioning and lung injury with artificial ventilation, it is recommended that hospitalised infants and children should only be placed in this position while under continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring.

Advanced respiratory monitoring in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current knowledge about the application of advanced monitoring techniques in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

RECENT FINDINGS

Due to the heterogeneity between patients, management of COVID-19 requires daily monitoring of and/or aeration and inspiratory effort. Electrical impedance tomography can be used to optimize positive end-expiratory pressure, monitor the response to changes in treatment or body position and assess pulmonary perfusion and ventilation/perfusion matching. Lung ultrasound is more readily available and can be used to measure and monitor recruitment, provide an indication of diaphragm function and pulmonary perfusion disturbances. Esophageal pressure measurements enable the calculation of the transpulmonary pressure and inspiratory effort in order to prevent excessive stress on the lung. While esophageal pressure measurements are the golden standard in determining inspiratory effort, alternatives like P0.1, negative pressure swing during a single airway occlusion and change in central venous pressure are more readily available and capable of diagnosing extreme inspiratory efforts.

SUMMARY

Although there is little data on the effectiveness of advanced monitoring techniques in COVID-19, regular monitoring should be a central part of the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS).

The prevention of pressure injuries in the positioning and mobilization of patients in the ICU: a good clinical practice document by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this document is to support clinical decision-making concerning positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient in the early identification and resolution of risk factors (primary prevention) and in the early recognition of those most at risk (secondary prevention). The addresses of this document are physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and other professionals involved in patient positioning in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A consensus pathway was followed using the Nominal Focus Group and the Delphi Technique, integrating a phase of focused group discussion online and with a pre-coded guide to an individual phase. A multidisciplinary advisory board composed by nine experts on the topic contributed to both the phases of the process, to reach a consensus on four clinical questions positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient.

RESULTS

The topics addressed by the clinical questions were the risks associated with obligatory positioning and therapeutic positions, the effective interventions in preventing pressure injuries, the appropriate instruments for screening for pressure injuries in the ICU, and the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions relating to ICU positioning. A total of 27 statements addressing these clinical questions were produced by the panel. Among the statements, nine provided guidance on how to manage safely some specific patients' positions, including the prone position; five suggested specific screening tools and patients' factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of developing pressure injuries; five gave indications on mobilization and repositioning; and eight focused on the use of devices, such as positioners and preventive dressings.

CONCLUSIONS

The statements may represent a practical guidance for a broad public of healthcare professionals involved in the management of critically ill patients.

Lateral position during severe mono-lateral pneumonia: an experimental study

Patients with mono-lateral pneumonia and severe respiratory failure can be positioned in lateral decubitus, with the healthy lung dependent, to improve ventilation-perfusion coupling. Oxygenation response to this manoeuvre is heterogeneous and derecruitment of dependent lung has not been elucidated. Nine pigs (32.2 ± 1.2 kg) were sedated and mechanically ventilated. Mono-lateral right-sided pneumonia was induced with intrabronchial challenge of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After 24 h, lungs were recruited and the animals were randomly positioned on right or left side. After 3 h of lateral positioning, the animals were placed supine; another recruitment manoeuvre was performed, and the effects of contralateral decubitus were assessed. Primary outcome was lung ultrasound score (LUS) of the dependent lung after 3-h lateral positioning. LUS of the left non-infected lung worsened while positioned in left-lateral position (from 1.33 ± 1.73 at baseline to 6.78 ± 4.49; p = 0.005). LUS of the right-infected lung improved when placed upward (9.22 ± 2.73 to 6.67 ± 3.24; p = 0.09), but worsened in right-lateral position (7.78 ± 2.86 to 13.33 ± 3.08; p < 0.001). PaO₂/FiO₂ improved in the left-lateral position (p = 0.005). In an animal model of right-lung pneumonia, left-lateral decubitus improved oxygenation, but collapsed the healthy lung. Right-lateral orientation further collapsed the diseased lung. Our data raise potential clinical concerns for the use of lateral position in mono-lateral pneumonia.

Positioning immobile critically ill patients who are at risk of pressure injuries using a purpose-designed positioning device and usual care equipment: An observational feasibility study

The prevalence of pressure injuries in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is high with rates ranging from 13.1% to 45.5%. Evaluation of interventions to prevent pressure injuries should be informed by preliminary research to identify factors that should be considered during the design of future trials. The study objectives were to evaluate the process of participant recruitment and monitoring in the ICU; measure the maintenance of body angle (in the side-lying lateral tilt position) and head and neck alignment angle (in the supine position) among immobile critically ill patients when using a purpose-designed positioning device and usual care equipment, and; ascertain the time required to position patients with the purpose-designed positioning device and the usual care equipment. A prospective, observational, feasibility study was conducted in an ICU in Victoria, Australia. The sample was immobile critically ill adults at high-risk of developing pressure injuries. The usual care interventions were pillows, foam wedges, and rolled towels, and the intervention device was the Z-Flo Fluidized Positioner. The body angle and head and neck alignment were measured on six occasions (at baseline, 1 hour, and 2 hours). The time required for positioning was also measured. The sample was predominately male (n = 5, 62%) with a mean age of 59 years. The majority of patients (n = 106, 92.2%) were not immobile and therefore were ineligible to participate. A total of 48 turning and positioning interventions were observed. For the side-lying lateral tilt position, the degree of difference from baseline to 2 hours was no more than three degrees for all the devices (the Fluidized Positioner 25°-26°, the foam wedge 29°-27°, and the pillow 23°-21°). For the head and neck position, the degree of difference from baseline to 2 hours was the greatest for the pillow and rolled towel (78°-71°, a difference of 7°) and the pillow alone (79°-74°, a difference of 5°). The degree of difference was the lowest for the Fluidized Positioner (84°-86°, a difference of 2°). Future research to evaluate positioning equipment in the ICU should consider patient eligibility characteristics, particularly immobility. The conduct of preliminary studies to inform the design of larger pressure injury prevention trials is recommended.

Supine, prone, right and left gravitational effects on human pulmonary circulation

BACKGROUND

Body position can be optimized for pulmonary ventilation/perfusion matching during surgery and intensive care. However, positional effects upon distribution of pulmonary blood flow and vascular distensibility measured as the pulmonary blood volume variation have not been quantitatively characterized. In order to explore the potential clinical utility of body position as a modulator of pulmonary hemodynamics, we aimed to characterize gravitational effects upon distribution of pulmonary blood flow, pulmonary vascular distension, and pulmonary vascular distensibility.

METHODS

Healthy subjects (n = 10) underwent phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) pulmonary artery and vein flow measurements in the supine, prone, and right/left lateral decubitus positions. For each lung, blood volume variation was calculated by subtracting venous from arterial flow per time frame.

RESULTS

Body position did not change cardiac output (p = 0.84). There was no difference in blood flow between the superior and inferior pulmonary veins in the supine (p = 0.92) or prone body positions (p = 0.43). Compared to supine, pulmonary blood flow increased to the dependent lung in the lateral positions (16-33%, p = 0.002 for both). Venous but not arterial cross-sectional vessel area increased in both lungs when dependent compared to when non-dependent in the lateral positions (22-27%, p ≤ 0.01 for both). In contrast, compared to supine, distensibility increased in the non-dependent lung in the lateral positions (68-113%, p = 0.002 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR demonstrates that in the lateral position, there is a shift in blood flow distribution, and venous but not arterial blood volume, from the non-dependent to the dependent lung. The non-dependent lung has a sizable pulmonary vascular distensibility reserve, possibly related to left atrial pressure. These results support the physiological basis for positioning patients with unilateral pulmonary pathology with the "good lung down" in the context of intensive care. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the diagnostic potential of these physiological insights into pulmonary hemodynamics, particularly in the context of non-invasively characterizing pulmonary hypertension.