Prone positioning for non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive non-drug measures in improving respiratory symptoms among patients with severe COVID-19: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection posed a huge threat and burden to public healthcare in late 2022. Non-drug measures of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), such as acupuncture, cupping and moxibustion, are commonly used as adjuncts in China to help in severe cases, but their effects remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To observe the clinical effect of TCM non-drug measures in improving respiratory function and symptoms among patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

This study was designed as a multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The treatment group received individualized TCM non-drug measures in combination with prone position ventilation, while the control group received prone position ventilation only for 5 consecutive days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were the percentage of patients with improved oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the end of the 5-day intervention, as well as changes of patients' respiratory rates. The secondary outcome measures included changes in SpO2 and total score on the self-made respiratory symptom scale. The improvement rate, defined as a 3-day consecutive increase in SpO2, the duration of prone positioning, and adverse events were recorded as well.

RESULTS

Among the 198 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 159 (80.3%) completed all assessments on day 5, and 39 (19.7%) patients withdrew from the study. At the end of the intervention, 71 (91%) patients in the treatment group had SpO2 above 93%, while 61 (75.3%) in the control group reached this level. The proportion of participant with improved SpO2 was significantly greater in the intervention group (mean difference [MD] = 15.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.4, 27.1; P = 0.008). Compared to the baseline, with daily treatment there were significant daily decreases in respiratory rates in both groups, but no statistical differences between groups were found (all P ≥ 0.05). Compared to the control group, the respiratory-related symptoms score was lower among patients in the treatment group (MD = -1.7; 95% CI: -2.8, -0.5; P = 0.008) after day 3 of treatment. A gradual decrease in the total scores of both groups was also observed. Thirty-one adverse events occurred during the intervention, and 2 patients were transferred to the intensive care unit due to deterioration of their illness.

CONCLUSION

TCM non-drug measures combined with prone positioning can effectively treat patients with severe COVID-19. The combined therapy significantly increased SpO2 and improved symptom scores compared to prone positioning alone, thus improving the patients' respiratory function to help them recover. However, the improvement rate did not differ between the two groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300068319). Please cite this article as: Yin X, Jin Z, Li F, Huang L, Hu YM, Zhu BC, Wang ZQ, Li XY, Li JP, Lao LX, Mi YQ, Xu SF. Effectiveness and safety of adjunctive non-drug measures in improving respiratory symptoms among patients with severe COVID-19: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(6): 637-644.

Hypoxaemic respiratory failure and awake prone ventilation (HYPER-AP) - Protocol for randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning is studied extensively during Covid-19 pandemic, but there is very limited evidence on its utility in acute hypoxic respiratory failure caused by bacterial infections or other causes. The aim of our research is to evaluate the impact of awake prone positioning on outcomes in non-intubated adult patients with acute non-Covid19 hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

This is a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel-group design and a 1:1 allocation ratio. Adult patients, admitted to ICU and diagnosed with hypoxemic respiratory failure will be randomly allocated into intervention (awake prone position (APP)) or control group. Our hypothesis is that addition of awake prone positioning to standard oxygen, high flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in adult patients diagnosed with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Primary outcome is rate of endotracheal intubation; secondary outcomes include intensive care and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care and hospital stay and health related quality of life post hospital discharge. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at hospital discharge, 30, 90 days and 1 year following randomisation.

CONCLUSION

The Hyper-AP study will assess the superiority of awake prone positioning versus standard treatment in spontaneously breathing ICU patients diagnosed with hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

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.

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.

Optimal timing for awake prone positioning in Covid-19 patients: Insights from an observational study from two centers

BACKGROUND

The widespread application and interest in awake prone positioning stems from its ease and availability and its ability to enhance patients' oxygenation. Nevertheless, due to the absence of consensus over the regimen of awake prone positioning, the efficacy of awake prone positioning remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the optimal regimen for awake prone positioning, including the timing of initiation, ideal daily duration, and strategies for improving patient comfort and encouraging adherence.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING(S)

Two university-affiliated hospitals in Shanghai.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2022 and February 2023, a total of 475 patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia who received awake prone positioning were observed.

METHODS

The data were collected from the hospital's electronic medical record system. The differentiation efficiency of peripheral blood oxygen saturation [SpO2]:fractional oxygen concentration in inspired air [FiO2] ratio at first awake prone positioning for different outcomes was tested by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the relationship between time to occurrence of 28-day outcomes and collected variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted with the percentage of 28-day outcomes according to the SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning after controlling covariates through Cox regression.

RESULTS

The best efficiency in predicting patient outcomes was achieved when the cutoff SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning was 200. Patients with a reduced SpO2:FiO2 ratio (≤200) experienced more adverse respiratory outcomes (RR = 5.42, 95%CI [3.35, 8.76], p < 0·001) and higher mortality (RR = 16.64, 95%CI [5.53, 50.13], p < 0.001). Patients with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio of ≥200 at first awake prone positioning, longer duration between first awake prone positioning and admission, more awake prone positioning days, and better awake prone positioning completion were significantly protected from 28-day adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating awake prone positioning with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio exceeding 200, increasing the number of awake prone positioning days, prolonging the time between first awake prone positioning and admission, and achieving better completion of awake prone positioning were found to be significantly associated with reduced adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05795751; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Lung impedance changes during awake prone positioning in COVID-19. A non-randomized cross-over study

BACKGROUND

The effects of awake prone positioning (APP) on respiratory mechanics in patients with COVID-19 are not well characterized. The aim of this study was to investigate changes of global and regional lung volumes during APP compared with the supine position using electrical lung impedance tomography (EIT) in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This exploratory non-randomized cross-over study was conducted at two university hospitals in Sweden between January and May 2021. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with confirmed COVID-19, an arterial cannula in place, a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <26.6 kPa (<200 mmHg) and high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation were eligible for inclusion. EIT-data were recorded at supine baseline, at 30 and 60 minutes after APP-initiation, and 30 minutes after supine repositioning. The primary outcomes were changes in global and regional tidal impedance variation (TIV), center of ventilation (CoV), global and regional delta end-expiratory lung-impedance (dEELI) and global inhomogeneity (GI) index at the end of APP compared with supine baseline. Data were reported as median (IQR).

RESULTS

All patients (n = 10) were male and age was 64 (47-73) years. There were no changes in global or regional TIV, CoV or GI-index during the intervention. dEELI increased from supine reference value 0 to 1.51 (0.32-3.62) 60 minutes after APP (median difference 1.51 (95% CI 0.19-5.16), p = 0.04) and returned to near baseline values after supine repositioning. Seven patients (70%) showed an increase >0.20 in dEELI during APP. The other EIT-variables did not change during APP compared with baseline.

CONCLUSION

Awake prone positioning was associated with a transient lung recruiting effect without changes in ventilation distribution measured with EIT in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Prone positioning effect on tracheal intubation rate, mortality and oxygenation parameters in awake non-intubated severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure: a review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning (PP) is a low-cost method with minimal risk to the patient that improves the oxygenation of patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19 pneumonia, thereby reducing their need for tracheal intubation (TI) and transferring to the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to overview the results of all previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses to examine the net effect of PP on oxygenation, the rate of TI and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases from December 2019 through 2022 without publication language restriction for systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies on PP vs. supine position (SP) in conscious patients with hypoxic respiratory failure COVID-19. After study selection, data were extracted from published meta-analyses and pooled by comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software version 2.2.064 to achieve effect sizes. They were analyzed for TI and mortality rates dichotomous variables, and the results were shown as pooled odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous variables such as oxygenation indices (PaO2/FiO2 and SpO2) were also analyzed, and the data were shown as mean differences (MD) with lower and upper CI. The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 19,651 patients and six systematic reviews with 2,911 patients were included in this Review of Reviews (total: 22,562). PP treatment significantly reduced the rate of TI (OR = 0.639, %95 CI (0.492, 0.829); P-value = 0.001) and decreased mortality (OR = 0.363, %95 CI (0.240, 0.549), P-value < 0.001). There was no difference in PaO2/FiO2 (MD = 3.591[- 40.881, 48.062]; P-value = 0.874) and SpO2 percent (MD = 1.641[- 4.441, 7.723]; P-value = 0.597).

CONCLUSION

Prone positioning can be recommended in conscious ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia to reduce mortality and intubation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022326951. Registered 25 April 2022.

Successful treatment of 1 patient with chlorine-induced ARDS using awake self-prone positioning and nasal high-flow oxygen: A case report

RATIONALE

Accidents involving chlorinated compounds in the context of cleaning are not uncommon. However, improving the treatment success rate for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients caused by chlorine gas presents significant challenges.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 28-year-old female was admitted to the intensive care unit after accidental inhalation of chlorine gas resulting in ARDS.

DIAGNOSES

The patient was diagnosed with ARDS attributed to chlorine gas exposure.

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention involved utilizing a combination of awake self-prone positioning (ASPP) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy for treatment.

OUTCOMES

After continuous ASPP and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, the patient quickly recovered and was transferred out of the intensive care unit on the 6th day without any adverse events.

LESSONS

ASPP combined with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy can improve patients' hypoxemia, prevent the need for intubation, avoid rapid deterioration of the condition, reduce treatment complexity, and lower mortality rate.

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.

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.

Clinical Applicability of Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patient-Tailored Ventilation: A Narrative Review

Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive bedside imaging technique that provides real-time lung ventilation information on critically ill patients. EIT can potentially become a valuable tool for optimising mechanical ventilation, especially in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In addition, EIT has been shown to improve the understanding of ventilation distribution and lung aeration, which can help tailor ventilatory strategies according to patient needs. Evidence from critically ill patients shows that EIT can reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and prevent lung injury due to overdistension or collapse. EIT can also identify the presence of lung collapse or recruitment during a recruitment manoeuvre, which may guide further therapy. Despite its potential benefits, EIT has not yet been widely used in clinical practice. This may, in part, be due to the challenges associated with its implementation, including the need for specialised equipment and trained personnel and further validation of its usefulness in clinical settings. Nevertheless, ongoing research focuses on improving mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Treatment with Helmet CPAP in Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit by Pulmonologists in the Three Italian Pandemic Waves

COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) is the most serious complication of COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks rapidly saturated intensive care unit (ICU), forcing the application of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) in respiratory intermediate care unit (RICU). The primary aim of this study is to compare the patients' clinical characteristics and outcomes (Helmet-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (H-CPAP) success/failure and survival/death). The secondary aim is to evaluate and detect the main predictors of H-CPAP success and survival/death. A total of 515 patients were enrolled in our observational prospective study based on CARDS developed in RICU during the three Italian pandemic waves. All selected patients were treated with H-CPAP. The worst ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) PaO2/FiO2 during H-CPAP stratified the subjects into mild, moderate and severe CARDS. H-CPAP success has increased during the three waves (62%, 69% and 77%, respectively) and the mortality rate has decreased (28%, 21% and 13%). H-CPAP success/failure and survival/death were related to the PaO2/FiO2 (worst score) ratio in H-CPAP and to steroids' administration. D-dimer at admission, FiO2 and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) were also associated with H-CPAP success. Our study suggests good outcomes with H-CPAP in CARDS in RICU. A widespread use of steroids could play a role.

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.

A case report and literature review of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated pneumonia caused by penpulimab

Objective

From the perspective of intensive care physicians, this paper reviews the diagnosis and treatment of CIP patients, analyzes and refines relevant literature on CIP. To summarize the characteristics of diagnosis and treatment of severe CIP provides the basis and reference for early identification, diagnosis and treatment.

Methods

A case of severe CIP caused by piamprilizumab and ICI was reviewed and the literature was reviewed.

Results

This was a patient with lung squamous cell carcinoma with lymphoma who had been treated with multiple chemoradiotherapy and immunotherapy with piamprizumab. The patient was admitted to the ICU with respiratory failure. The intensive care physician performs anti-infective, fluid management, hormonal anti-inflammatory, respiratory and nutritional support treatment, and relies on mNGS to exclude severe infection and CIP treatment, thus successfully saving the patient's life and improving discharge.

Conclusions

The incidence of CIP is very low, and its diagnosis should be combined with clinical manifestations and previous drug use. mNGS can provide certain value in the exclusion of severe infections, so as to provide basis and reference for the early identification, diagnosis and treatment of severe CIP.

Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and influenza in critically ill adult patients: a national database study

OBJECTIVE

Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, influenza was the most frequent cause of viral respiratory pneumonia requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Few studies have compared the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and influenza.

METHODS

This was a French nationwide study comparing COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2021) and influenza patients (January 1, 2014-December 31, 2019) admitted to an ICU during pre-vaccination era. Primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

105,979 COVID-19 patients were compared to 18,763 influenza patients. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be men with more comorbidities. Patients with influenza required more invasive mechanical ventilation (47 vs. 34%, p<0·001), vasopressors (40% vs. 27, p<0·001) and renal-replacement therapy (22 vs. 7%, p<0·001). Hospital mortality was 25 and 21% (p<0·001) in patients with COVID-19 and influenza, respectively. In the subgroup of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients with COVID-19 (18 [10-32] vs. 15 [8-26] days, p<0·001). Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and modified SAPS II score, in-hospital death was higher in COVID-19 patients (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.69; 95%CI=1.63-1.75) compared with influenza patients. COVID-19 was also associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=0.87; 95%CI=0.85-0.89) and a higher likelihood of death without invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=2.40; 95%CI=2.24-2.57).

CONCLUSION

Despite younger age and lower SAPS II score, critically ill COVID-19 patients had a longer hospital stay and higher mortality than patients with influenza.

Patient Self-Inflicted Lung Injury-A Narrative Review of Pathophysiology, Early Recognition, and Management Options

Patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) is a life-threatening condition arising from excessive respiratory effort and work of breathing in patients with lung injury. The pathophysiology of P-SILI involves factors related to the underlying lung pathology and vigorous respiratory effort. P-SILI might develop both during spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation with preserved spontaneous respiratory activity. In spontaneously breathing patients, clinical signs of increased work of breathing and scales developed for early detection of potentially harmful effort might help clinicians prevent unnecessary intubation, while, on the contrary, identifying patients who would benefit from early intubation. In mechanically ventilated patients, several simple non-invasive methods for assessing the inspiratory effort exerted by the respiratory muscles were correlated with respiratory muscle pressure. In patients with signs of injurious respiratory effort, therapy aimed to minimize this problem has been demonstrated to prevent aggravation of lung injury and, therefore, improve the outcome of such patients. In this narrative review, we accumulated the current information on pathophysiology and early detection of vigorous respiratory effort. In addition, we proposed a simple algorithm for prevention and treatment of P-SILI that is easily applicable in clinical practice.

Use of threshold PEP with an adult non-rebreather oxygen mask plus prone positioning in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection during the collapse of the health system in a low-income country

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, Ecuador reported a collapse of the healthcare system, in which intensive care unit beds were lacking. Therefore, we sought to determine whether the use of threshold expiratory positive pressure with an adult non-rebreather oxygen mask plus prone positioning is useful for improving oxygenation. Twelve patients were included. Eight patients (66.7%) survived, while four patients (33.3%) died. Baseline arterial oxygen saturation (%) prior placement median (interquartile range) 85.5% (80%-89%) and arterial oxygen saturation (%) post placement of the device was median (interquartile range) (93%-96%) (P = 0.0001). Respiratory rate before placement was median (interquartile range) 38 (36-42) and post placement of the device was median (interquartile range) 24 (22-30) (P = 0.0005). The use of an adapted device might be useful for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pneumonia, particularly when mechanical ventilators and high-flow oxygen systems are unavailable.

Awake Prone Positioning for Non-Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Awake prone positioning (APP) has been widely applied in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of APP and to identify the subpopulations that may benefit the most from it.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from inception to August 2022 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022342426). We included only RCTs comparing APP with supine positioning or standard of care with no prone positioning. Our primary outcomes were the risk of intubation and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for escalating respiratory support, length of ICU and hospital stay, ventilation-free days, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs and showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation in the overall population (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95; moderate certainty). Following the subgroup analyses, a greater benefit was observed in two patient cohorts: those receiving a higher level of respiratory support (compared with those receiving conventional oxygen therapy) and those in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (compared to patients in non-ICU settings). APP did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11; moderate certainty) and did not increase the risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, APP likely reduced the risk of requiring intubation, but failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall mortality risk. The benefits of APP are most noticeable in those requiring a higher level of respiratory support in an ICU environment.

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.

Respiratory and haemodynamic effects of 6h-pronation in neonates recovering from respiratory distress syndrome, or affected by acute respiratory distress syndrome or evolving bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a prospective, physiological, crossover, controlled cohort study

BACKGROUND

Pronation ameliorates oxygenation in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); the effect in neonates with ARDS or other types of respiratory failure is unknown. We aimed to verify if pronation has similar respiratory and haemodynamic effects in three common types of neonatal respiratory failure.

METHODS

Prospective, physiologic, crossover, quasi-randomised, controlled cohort study performed in a tertiary academic neonatal intensive care unit. We enrolled neonates with: 1) recovering respiratory distress syndrome (RDS, mild restrictive pattern); 2) neonatal ARDS (NARDS, severe restrictive pattern); or 3) evolving bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), that is chronic pulmonary insufficiency of prematurity (mixed restrictive/obstructive pattern). Neonates with other lung disorders, malformations or haemodynamic impairment were excluded. Patients were started prone or supine and then shifted to the alternate position for 6h; measurements were performed after 30' of "wash out" from the positioning and at the end of 6h period. Primary outcomes were respiratory (PtcCO_2, modified ventilatory index, PtcO₂/FiO₂, SpO₂/FiO₂, oxygenation index, ultrasound-assessed lung aeration) and haemodynamic (perfusion index, heart rate, arterial pressure, cardiac output) parameters.

FINDINGS

Between May 1st, 2019, and May 31st, 2021, 161 participants were enrolled in this study, and included in the final analysis. Pronation improved gas exchange and lung aeration (p always <0.01) and these effects were overturned in the alternate position, except for lung aeration in NARDS where the improvement persisted. The effects were greater in patients recovering from RDS than in those with evolving BPD than in those with NARDS, in this order (p always <0.01). Pronation produced a net recruitment as lung ultrasound score decreased in patients shifted from supine (16.9 (standard deviation: 5.8)) to prone (14.1 (standard deviation: 3.3), p < 0.01) and this reduction correlated with oxygenation improvement. Haemodynamic parameters remained within normal ranges.

INTERPRETATION

6h-pronation can be used to improve gas exchange and lung aeration in neonates with recovering RDS, evolving BPD or NARDS without relevant haemodynamic effects.

FUNDING

None.

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Previous studies have shown that an awake prone position may be beneficial for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in patients with COVID-19, but the results are not consistent, especially in terms of oxygenation outcomes and intubation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of the awake prone position on AHRF in patients with COVID-19 with all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

An extensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 December 2019 to 30 October 2022, with no language restrictions was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the PRISMA statement. We only included RCTs and used the Cochrane risk assessment tool for quality assessment.

Results

Fourteen RCTs fulfilled the selection criteria, and 3,290 patients were included. A meta-analysis found that patients in the awake prone position group had more significant improvement in the SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio [mean difference (MD): 29.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-48.13; P = 0.001] compared with the usual care. The prone position also reduced the need for intubation [odd ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.84; P < 0.0001; I ² = 0%]. There was no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusion

The awake prone position was a promising intervention method, which is beneficial to improve the oxygenation of patients with ARDS or AHRF caused by COVID-19 and reduce the need for intubation. However, the awake prone position showed no obvious advantage in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of ICU admission, and adverse events.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier: CRD42022367885.

Usefulness and limitations of the acute respiratory distress syndrome definitions in non-intubated patients. A narrative review

According to the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of at least 5 cmH₂O is required to diagnose and grade ARDS. While the Berlin consensus statement specifically acknowledges the role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in mild ARDS, this stratification has traditionally presumed a mechanically ventilated patient in the context of moderate to severe ARDS. This may not accurately reflect today's reality of clinical respiratory care. NIV and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNO) have been used for managing of severe forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with growing frequency, including in patients showing pathophysiological signs of ARDS. This became especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The levels of PEEP achieved with HFNO have been particularly controversial, and the exact FiO₂ it achieves is subject to variability. Pinpointing the presence of ARDS in patients receiving HNFO and the severity in those receiving NIV therefore remains methodically problematic. This narrative review highlights the evolution of the ARDS definition in the context of non-invasive ventilatory support and provides an overview of the parallel development of definitions and ventilatory management of ARDS. It summarizes the methodology applied in clinical trials to classify ARDS in non-intubated patients and the respective consequences on treatment. As ARDS severity has significant therapeutic and prognostic consequences, and earlier treatment in non-intubated patients may be beneficial, closing this knowledge gap may ultimately be a relevant step to improve comparability in clinical trial design and outcomes.

Effect of Prone Position on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Patients with Covid-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Prone positioning (PP) is a well-known respiratory support approach. Limited data are available for the use of PP in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Aim

This study aims to investigate the effect of PP on the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

In This clinical trial, the participants in the PP group (n=41) were asked to lie comfortably in a prone position for 90 minutes. In the supine position (SP) group (n=41), the participants were asked to lie comfortably in a supine position for 90 minutes. Clinical data such as oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, the severity of dyspnea, mean arterial pressure, and pulse rate were assessed at 0 (immediately before), 30, 60, 90 minutes after the start of the intervention and 30 min after resuming the supine position. The participants in the PP group were then asked to intermittently stay in a prone position for a total of eight hours per 24 hours of hospitalization. The participants in the control group were asked to remain in their usual positions during the hospital stay. Finally, the length of hospital stay, intubation rate, and survival assessed.

Findings

Prone positioning was associated with significant improvement in oxygen saturation (P = 0.001), respiratory rate (P=0.004), the severity of dyspnea (P=0.014), and mean arterial pressure (P=0.027). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pulse rate (P=0.890), hospital stay (P=0.994), intubation rate (P=0.324), and survival (P=0.091).

Discussion

Our results demonstrated that prone positioning showed marked improvement in some short-term clinical outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Conclusion

Prone positioning can be considered an inexpensive, accessible, and simple measure in awake non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

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.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of Biodentine and Formocresol: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic success rate of Biodentine as an alternative to Formocresol to provide a critical appraisal of the available literature and evidence-based conclusion as well as update the previous systematic review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were searched up to 20 October 2021 to identify RCTs evaluating pulpotomy with Biodentine/Formocresol in carious primary molars among children ≤ 10 years old. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated to pool results that RR ˃ 1 indicated a higher success rate in the Biodentine group and RR < 1 indicated a higher success rate in the Formocresol group. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I² and τ² statistics. In addition, trial sequential analysis was performed to adjust results for type I and type II errors and evaluate power of the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified and eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. The obtained evidence showed no significant difference between Biodentine and Formocresol in terms of clinical efficacy. However, considering the radiographic success rate the results of the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis significantly favoured Biodentine.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present review and based on the retrieved findings it has been clearly shown that Biodentine is superior compared to Formocresol in terms of radiographic success rate with firm evidence in this regard. Although the performed meta-analysis showed no significant clinical difference between Biodentine and Formocresol, however, trial sequential analysis revealed a lack of firm evidence in this regard.

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.

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.

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.

Authorization of COVID-19 clinical trials: lessons from 2 years of experience of a national competent authority

The COVID-19 pandemic was immediately marked by strong clinical research activity. The French national competent authority presents the data on request for authorization during the first 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic to inform discussions on future clinical research issues. Applications for authorization of interventional COVID-19 trials submitted between March 2020 and February 2022 were analysed. Trials on medicinal products were classified according to market authorization status, mechanism of action of the investigational product, target population and clinical context. In 2 years, 208 clinical trials were submitted. 75% were authorized, 3% refused, 22% withdrawn by the sponsor. Among medicinal products trials, 6% were adaptative, 28% included outpatients and 2% were focused on post COVID-19 symptoms. Vaccines were evaluated in 9% of trials, antivirals in 38% and immunomodulators in 35%; 63% of antiviral and 60% of immunomodulation trials included a drug with a marketing authorization in another indication. The dynamics of authorization prove the involvement of stakeholders but also illustrates the risk of dispersion of research efforts and the risk of decorrelation between trials and the epidemic evolution. The high rate of withdrawal of applications could be explained by changes in the sanitary context and by the dropping of some therapeutic approaches. Most of clinical trials evaluate drugs authorized in another indication and assessment procedures by authorities have to mitigate between the knowledge of safety profile of those drugs and the uncertainty in a new clinical context with rapidly evolving knowledge. COVID-19 experience should now support future evolution in clinical research practices.

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.

[Psychological aspects during and after intensive care treatment of ARDS]

Approximately 10% of all patients requiring intensive care develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The COVID-19 pandemic led to an accumulation of patients with severe ARDS. The experience of this severe respiratory failure is accompanied by feelings of existential anxiety in many patients.The complexity of the challenges and stresses that the disease and its treatment pose for the ARDS patient require an early multiprofessional approach to treatment already during intensive care. Psychological approaches are suitable to support the patient as well as the relatives in coping with the disease and to minimise risks for potential subsequent stress. Despite the long-term impairments of patients who have survived ARDS and the resulting need for follow-up care, suitable multimodal follow-up care concepts and the necessary care structures are still lacking. The article presents the psychological support during and after the intensive care treatment of ARDS.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

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

Background

Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285.

Findings

A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72–0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71–0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71–0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45–1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44–1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome.

Interpretation

In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU.

Funding

OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Breathing face down

The prone position has been used to improve oxygenation in patients affected by acute respiratory distress syndrome, but its role in patients with COVID-19 is still unclear when these patients are breathing spontaneously. Mechanisms of ventilation and perfusion in the prone position are discussed, with new insights on how these changes relate to patients with COVID-19.

The Application of Awake-Prone Positioning Among Non-intubated Patients With COVID-19-Related ARDS: A Narrative Review

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly increased the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), necessitating respiratory support. This strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources forces clinicians to limit the use of mechanical ventilation by seeking novel therapeutic strategies. Awake-prone positioning appears to be a safe and tolerable intervention for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Meanwhile, several observational studies and meta-analyses have reported the early use of prone positioning in awake patients with COVID-19-related ARDS (C-ARDS) for improving oxygenation levels and preventing ICU transfers. Indeed, some international guidelines have recommended the early application of awake-prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure attributable to C-ARDS. However, its effectiveness in reducing intubation rate, mortality, applied timing, and optimal duration is unclear. High-quality evidence of awake-prone positioning for hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 is still lacking. Therefore, this article provides an update on the current state of published literature about the physiological rationale, effect, timing, duration, and populations that might benefit from awake proning. Moreover, the risks and adverse effects of awake-prone positioning were also investigated. This work will guide future studies and aid clinicians in deciding on better treatment plans.