Magnitude and time to peak oxygenation effect of prone positioning in ventilated adults with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Extended versus Standard Proning Duration for COVID-19-associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Target Trial Emulation Study

Rationale: Prone positioning for ⩾16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS. Methods: Data were extracted from a five-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (⩾24 h) versus standard (16-24 h) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Analytically, we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox or Fine-Gray regression models. Results: A total of 314 patients were included; 234 received extended proning, and 80 received standard-duration proning. Patients who received extended proning were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended versus standard proning groups was 39% versus 58%. In doubly robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (subdistribution hazard, 1.60 [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (subdistribution hazard, 1.31 [0.82-2.10]). Conclusions: Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified.

Pressure injuries in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients utilising different prone positioning techniques - A prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence and distribution of pressure injuries (PIs) with two approaches to prone positioning for mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, and to determine the prevalence of these PIs on intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study.

SETTING

Adult patients admitted to a quaternary ICU with COVID-19-associated acute lung injury, between September 2021 and February 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence and anatomical distribution of PIs during ICU stay for "Face Down" and "Swimmers Position" as well as on ICU and hospital discharge.

RESULTS

We investigated 206 prone episodes in 63 patients. In the Face Down group, 26 of 34 patients (76 %) developed at least one PI, compared to 10 of 22 patients (45 %) in the Swimmers Position group (p = 0.02). Compared to the Swimmers Position group, the Face Down group developed more pressure injuries per patient (median 1 [1, 3] vs 0 [0, 2], p = 0.04) and had more facial PIs (p = 0.002). In a multivariate logistic regression model, patients were more likely to have at least one PI with Face Down position (OR 4.67, 95 % CI 1.28, 17.04, p = 0.02) and greater number of prone episodes (OR 1.75, 95 % CI 1.12, 2.74, p = 0.01). Over 80 % of all PIs were either stage 1 or stage 2. By ICU discharge, 29 % had healed and by hospital discharge, 73 % of all PIs had healed.

CONCLUSION

Swimmers Position had a significantly lower incidence of PIs compared to the Face Down approach. One-quarter of PIs had healed by time of ICU discharge and three-quarters by time of hospital discharge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

There are differences in incidence of PIs related to prone positioning approaches. This study validates and helps better inform current prone position guidelines recommending the use of Swimmers Position. The low prevalence of PIs at hospital discharge is reassuring.