Does gas exchange response to prone position predict mortality in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure?

Prone Positioning: A Safe and Effective Procedure in Pregnant Women Presenting with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and survival in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Data regarding feasibility and effectiveness of PP in pregnancy are lacking. This subgroup analysis of a cohort study that included mechanically ventilated pregnant women presenting with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced ARDS who underwent PP aims to assess the efficacy and safety of PP. Ventilatory and gasometric parameters were evaluated at baseline (T0) and in prone (T1) and supine (T2) positions. Obstetric outcomes were also assessed. Sixteen cases at an average of 27.0 (22.0−31.1) gestational weeks of pregnancy were included. Obesity and hypertension were frequent comorbidities. PP was associated with a >20% increase in PaO2 levels and in PaO2/FiO2 ratios in 50% and 100% of cases, respectively. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased 76.7% (20.5−292.4%) at T1 and 76.9% (0−182.7%) at T2. PP produced sustained improvements in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio (p < 0.001) and PaCO2 level (p = 0.028). There were no cases of emergency delivery or suspected fetal distress in pregnancies ≥25 weeks during the 24 h period following PP. PP is safe and feasible during pregnancy, improving PaO2/FiO2 ratios and helping to delay preterm delivery in severe ARDS.

Prognostic value of computed tomographic findings in acute respiratory distress syndrome and the response to prone positioning

Background

Prone positioning enables the redistribution of lung weight, leading to the improvement of gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. We aimed to evaluate whether the initial findings of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on computed tomography (CT) are associated with the subsequent response to prone positioning in terms of oxygenation and 60-day mortality.

Methods

We retrospectively included patients who underwent prone positioning for moderate to severe ARDS from October 2014 to November 2020 at a medical center in Taiwan. A semiquantitative CT rating scale was used to quantify the extent of consolidation and ground-glass opacification (GGO) in the sternal, central and vertebral regions at three levels (apex, hilum and base) of the lungs. A prone responder was identified by a 20% increase in the ratio of arterial oxygen pressure (PaO₂) to the fraction of oxygen (FiO₂) or a 20 mmHg increase in PaO₂.

Results

Ninety-six patients were included, of whom 68 (70.8%) were responders. Compared with nonresponders, responders had a significantly greater median dorsal–ventral difference in CT-consolidation scores (10 vs. 7, p = 0.046) but not in CT-GGO scores (− 1 vs. − 1, p = 0.974). Although dorsal–ventral differences in neither CT-consolidation scores nor CT-GGO scores were associated with 60-day mortality, high total CT-GGO scores (≥ 15) were an independent factor associated with 60-day mortality (odds ratio = 4.07, 95% confidence interval, 1.39–11.89, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a greater difference in the extent of consolidation along the dependent-independent axis on CT scan is associated with subsequent prone positioning oxygenation response, but not clinical outcome regarding survival. High total CT-GGO scores were independently associated with 60-day mortality.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-01864-9.

Effects of Prone Positioning on Respiratory Mechanics and Oxygenation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Background:

The effect of prone positioning (PP) on respiratory mechanics remains uncertain in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO).

Methods:

We prospectively analyzed the effects of PP on respiratory mechanics from continuous data with over a thousand time points during 16-h PP sessions in patients with COVID-19 and ARDS under VV-ECMO conditions. The evolution of respiratory mechanical and oxygenation parameters during the PP sessions was evaluated by dividing each PP session into four time quartiles: first quartile: 0–4 h, second quartile: 4–8 h, third quartile: 8–12 h, and fourth quartile: 12–16 h.

Results:

Overall, 38 PP sessions were performed in 10 patients, with 3 [2–5] PP sessions per patient. Seven (70%) patients were responders to at least one PP session. PP significantly increased the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio by 14 ± 21% and compliance by 8 ± 15%, and significantly decreased the oxygenation index by 13 ± 18% and driving pressure by 8 ± 12%. The effects of PP on respiratory mechanics but not on oxygenation persisted after supine repositioning. PP-induced changes in different respiratory mechanical parameters and oxygenation started as early as the first-time quartile, without any difference in PP-induced changes among the different time quartiles. PP-induced changes in driving pressure (−14 ± 14 vs. −6 ± 10%, p = 0.04) and mechanical power (−11 ± 13 vs. −0.1 ± 12%, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in responders (increase in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio > 20%) than in non-responder patients.

Conclusions:

In patients with COVID-19 and severe ARDS, PP under VV-ECMO conditions improved the respiratory mechanical and oxygenation parameters, and the effects of PP on respiratory mechanics persisted after supine repositioning.

Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

The trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions.

METHODS

We included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget ( https://www.CovidUK.ICU ).

RESULTS

Data for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9-18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06-1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17-2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04-1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99-1.79]; P = 0.057) immediately prior to application of prone positioning were associated with lack of oxygenation response. Prone positioning was not applied to 76% of patients with moderate hypoxemia and 45% of those with severe hypoxemia and patients who died without receiving proning interventions had more missed opportunities for prone intervention [7 (3-15.5) versus 2 (0-6); P < 0.001]. Despite the severity of gas exchange deficit, most patients received lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes less than 8 mL/kg and plateau pressures less than 30cmH2O. This was despite systematic errors in measurement of height and derived ideal body weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Refractory hypoxaemia remains a major association with mortality, yet evidence based ARDS interventions, in particular prone positioning, were not implemented and had delayed application with an associated reduced responsiveness. Real-time service evaluation techniques offer opportunities to assess the delivery of care and improve protocolised implementation of evidence-based ARDS interventions, which might be associated with improvements in survival.

Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients

Background

Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave.

Methods

Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position.

Results

Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively).

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2.

Clinical meaning of early oxygenation improvement in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome under prolonged prone positioning

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Ventilating patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the prone position has been shown to improve arterial oxygenation, but prolonged prone positioning frequently requires continuous deep sedation, which may be harmful to patients. We evaluated the meaning of early gas exchange in patients with severe ARDS under prolonged (> or = 12 hours) prone positioning.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 96 patients (mean age, 60.1 +/- 15.6 years; 75% men) with severe ARDS (PaO(2)/FiO2 < or = 150 mmHg) admitted to a medical intensive care unit (MICU). The terms "PaO2 response" and "PaCO2 response" represented responses that resulted in increases in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of > or = 20 mmHg and decreases in PaCO2 of > or = 1 mmHg, respectively, 8 to 12 hours after first placement in the prone position.

RESULTS

The mean duration of prone positioning was 78.5 +/- 61.2 hours, and the 28-day mortality rate after MICU admission was 56.3%. No significant difference in clinical characteristics was observed between PaO2 and PaCO2 responders and non-responders. The PaO2 responders after prone positioning showed an improved 28-day outcome, compared with non-responders by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (p < 0.05 by the log-rank test), but the PaCO12 responders did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the early oxygenation improvement after prone positioning might be associated with an improved 28-day outcome and may be an indicator to maintain prolonged prone positioning in patients with severe ARDS.

Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prone position ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) improves oxygenation but not survival, except possibly when AHRF is severe.

OBJECTIVE

To determine effects of prone versus supine ventilation in AHRF and severe hypoxemia [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO(2))/inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO(2)) <100 mmHg] compared with moderate hypoxemia (100 mmHg < or = PaO(2)/FiO(2) < or = 300 mmHg).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (to November 2009) and conference proceedings.

METHODS

Two authors independently selected and extracted data from parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing prone with supine ventilation in mechanically ventilated adults or children with AHRF. Trialists provided subgroup data. The primary outcome was hospital mortality in patients with AHRF and PaO(2)/FiO(2) <100 mmHg. Meta-analyses used study-level random-effects models.

RESULTS

Ten trials (N = 1,867 patients) met inclusion criteria; most patients had acute lung injury. Methodological quality was relatively high. Prone ventilation reduced mortality in patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) <100 mmHg [risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.96; p = 0.01; seven trials, N = 555] but not in patients with PaO(2)/FiO(2) > or =100 mmHg (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.22; p = 0.36; seven trials, N = 1,169). Risk ratios differed significantly between subgroups (interaction p = 0.012). Post hoc analysis demonstrated statistically significant improved mortality in the more hypoxemic subgroup and significant differences between subgroups using a range of PaO(2)/FiO(2) thresholds up to approximately 140 mmHg. Prone ventilation improved oxygenation by 27-39% over the first 3 days of therapy but increased the risks of pressure ulcers (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.44), endotracheal tube obstruction (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24-2.01), and chest tube dislodgement (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.02-9.69). There was no statistical between-trial heterogeneity for most clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Given associated risks, this approach should not be routine in all patients with AHRF, but may be considered for severely hypoxemic patients.

Effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on clinical outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation in the prone position is used to improve oxygenation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We sought to determine the effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on mortality, oxygenation, duration of ventilation and adverse events in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

In this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Science Citation Index Expanded for articles published from database inception to February 2008. We also conducted extensive manual searches and contacted experts. We extracted physiologic data and clinically relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials that enrolled a total of 1559 patients met our inclusion criteria. Overall methodologic quality was good. In 10 of the trials (n = 1486) reporting this outcome, we found that prone positioning did not reduce mortality among hypoxemic patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.09; p = 0.52). The lack of effect of ventilation in the prone position on mortality was similar in trials of prolonged prone positioning and in patients with acute lung injury. In 8 of the trials (n = 633), the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen on day 1 was 34% higher among patients in the prone position than among those who remained supine (p < 0.001); these results were similar in 4 trials on day 2 and in 5 trials on day 3. In 9 trials (n = 1206), the ratio in patients assigned to the prone group remained 6% higher the morning after they returned to the supine position compared with patients assigned to the supine group (p = 0.07). Results were quantitatively similar but statistically significant in 7 trials on day 2 and in 6 trials on day 3 (p = 0.001). In 5 trials (n = 1004), prone positioning was associated with a reduced risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99; p = 0.04) but not with a reduced duration of ventilation. In 6 trials (n = 504), prone positioning was associated with an increased risk of pressure ulcers (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.71; p = 0.01). Most analyses found no to moderate between-trial heterogeneity.

INTERPRETATION

Mechanical ventilation in the prone position does not reduce mortality or duration of ventilation despite improved oxygenation and a decreased risk of pneumonia. Therefore, it should not be used routinely for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, a sustained improvement in oxygenation may support the use of prone positioning in patients with very severe hypoxemia, who have not been well-studied to date.