Awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the PROFLO multicenter randomized clinical trial

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

Background

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

Research question

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

Study design

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

Results

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

Interpretation

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

Trial registration

NCT04853979 (clinicaltrials.gov).

[COVID-19 in the intensive care unit]

The acute respiratory failure as well as ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) have challenged clinicians since the initial description over 50 years ago. Various causes can lead to ARDS and therapeutic approaches for ARDS/ARF are limited to the support or replacement of organ functions and the prevention of therapy-induced consequences. In recent years, triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, numerous cases of acute lung failure (C-ARDS) have emerged. The pathophysiological processes of classical ARDS and C-ARDS are essentially similar. In their final stages of inflammation, both lead to a disruption of the blood-air barrier. Treatment strategies for C-ARDS, like classical ARDS, focus on supporting or replacing organ functions and preventing consequential damage. This article summarizes the treatment strategies in the intensive care unit.

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.

Prone positioning in awake patients without ventilatory support does not alter major clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19: results from a retrospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

During the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, clinicians recommended awake-prone positioning (APP) to avoid the worst outcomes. The objectives of this study were to investigate if APP reduces intubation, death rates, and hospital length of stay (HLOS) in acute COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort with non-mechanically ventilated patients hospitalized in a reference center in Manaus, Brazil, 2020. Participants were stratified into APP and awake-not-prone positioning (ANPP) groups. Also, we conducted a systematic review and performed a meta-analysis to understand if this intervention had different outcomes in resource-limited settings (PROSPERO CRD42023422452).

RESULTS

A total of 115 participants were allocated into the groups. There was no statistical difference between both groups regarding time to intubation (HR: 0.861; 95CI: 0.474-1.1562; p=0.622) and time to death (HR: 1.666; 95CI: 0.939-2.951; p=0.081). APP was not significantly associated with reduced HLOS. A total of 86 articles were included in the systematic review, of which 76 (88,3%) show similar findings after APP. Also, low/middle, and high-income countries were similar regarding such outcomes.

CONCLUSION

APP in COVID-19 does not present clinical improvement that affects mortality, intubation rate and HLOS. The lack of a prone position protocol, obtained through a controlled study, is necessary. After 3 years, APP benefits are still inconclusive.

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.

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.

Application of prone position ventilation in ventilation strategies for patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been shown to die mainly due to disease-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone position ventilation (PPV) is an important ventilation strategy in the management of patients with ARDS.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the application of PPV in ventilation strategies for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Three hundred patients with COVID-19 admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Shanxi Bethune Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021 were retrospectively collected. Based on body position and conscious state, all patients were divided into three groups: intubation prone position group (n= 110), awake prone position group (n= 90) and supine position group (n= 100); The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE-II) scores, blood gas indicators, complications and other relevant clinical indicators were compared among the three groups. One-way ANOVA was used to compare means between multiple groups for quantitative information that conformed to a normal distribution. Repeated measures ANOVA was used for repeated measures data. Component comparisons were made using the Kruskal-Wallis H rank sum test for non-normally distributed quantitative data.

RESULTS

One-way repeated-measures ANOVA main effect analysis showed different effects of different treatments on PaO2 in patients with COVID-19 (F treatment = 256.231, P< 0.05), with the order of awake prone position group > intubation prone position group > supine position group. The effects of the three different treatments on P/F in patients with COVID-19 (F treatment = 311.661, P< 0.05), with the order of awake prone position group > supine position group > intubation prone position group; Moreover, the three treatments had different effects on APACHE II scores in patients with COVID-19 (F treatment = 201.342, P< 0.05), with the order of intubation prone position group > supine position group > awake prone position group.

CONCLUSION

Intubation prone position and awake prone position can improve lung function to some extent in patients with COVID-19, and should be applied as early as possible in patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS.

The effect of nature-based music intervention on adaptation and anxiety levels in patients with COVID-19 placed in the prone position: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of listening to nature-based music on anxiety, physiological parameters, and adjustment to the prone position in conscious and hypoxemic COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

A single-blinded randomized control trial design.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the intensive care unit of a state hospital in Turkey. Sixty-four patients were randomized into an intervention group and a control group.

METHODS

A nature-based music intervention was applied in addition to routine care to the intervention group in the prone position, while the control group received routine care in the same position. The study outcomes included state-trait anxiety, physiological parameters, and prone time within 24 h. Measurements were performed in the supine position (Time: T0), in the 30th minute in the prone position (T1), and in the 30th minute of the supine position given following the prone position (T2). Data analysis included independent samples t-test in independent groups and repeated measures ANOVA in dependent groups.

RESULTS

State anxiety fell statistically significantly in the intervention group compared to that of the control group (39.1 ± 6.6 vs. 43.4 ± 7.9, p = 0.025). At T2, the heart rate of the intervention group did not increase, but it increased significantly in the control group compared to T0 and T1 values (87.8 ± 9.8 vs. 91.1 ± 10.8; p = 0.000). The oxygen saturation of the intervention group increased significantly compared to that of the control group (94.5 ± 2.3 vs. 93.4 ± 1.9, p = 0.035). The prone position time of the intervention group was significantly greater than that of the control group (11.5 ± 1.5 vs. 10.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that nature-based music intervention applied to conscious and hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in the prone position improved anxiety and oxygen saturation and increased the prone position time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Listening to nature-based music in prone position may reduce anxiety in conscious patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, it may increase adjustment to the prone position, and it may improve oxygenation and heart rate.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia in Greek Patients: A Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and prone positioning may improve outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to describe outcomes following the timely application of HFNO and prone positioning in COVID-19 patients treated in a ward setting.

METHODS

The study included 89 prospectively recruited subjects at the COVID-19 ward unit of the University Hospital of Heraklion, Greece, between March and December 2020.

RESULTS

Seventy-four (83%) of the 89 subjects in the study had severe COVID-19. Of those, 33 (45%) required HFNO treatment and prone positioning and 15 (45%) were transferred to the ICU, with 4 of them being intubated. Severe COVID-19 and HFNO needs were associated with an increased pneumonia severity index (PSI) score on admission and a worse PaO2/FiO2 ratio. In multivariate analysis, PSI was the only independent predictor of subsequent HFNO needs (OR=1.022). Overall intubation and mortality rates were 5.6% and 3.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that for patients with severe COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards, standard COVID-19 treatment, along with the timely utilization of HFNO and prone positioning, resulted in excellent outcomes with fewer ICU admission rates.

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

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

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

COVID-19 and Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between COVID-19-related variables and hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) incidence.

DATA SOURCES

The authors searched four databases: Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The literature search contained key terms such as "COVID-19," "hospital-acquired pressure injuries," "pressure ulcer," "pressure injury," "decubitus ulcer," and "hospitalization."

STUDY SELECTION

The systematic search of the literature identified 489 publications that matched the inclusion criteria. Articles were included in the review if they were peer-reviewed publications that reported HAPI incidence for patients who were hospitalized and COVID-19 positive. Two reviewers performed the screen simultaneously, and 19 publications were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers followed a standardized extraction form that included study and patient characteristics, COVID-19 status, HAPI characteristics, prone positioning, length of hospitalization, and HAPI prevention and treatment strategies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The authors carried out a narrative synthesis of the extracted data because the data obtained were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was HAPI incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified that HAPI incidence was high among men who were COVID-19 positive, had longer hospital stays, experienced prone positioning, and had care teams without a skin and wound care expert. Future research should use more robust methodology and focus on quantitative modeling to iteratively improve inpatient HAPI guidelines.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023394113.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Mechanical power normalized to aerated lung predicts noninvasive ventilation failure and death and contributes to the benefits of proning in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure

Background

Concern exists that noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may promote ventilation-induced lung injury(VILI) and worsen outcome in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Different individual ventilatory variables have been proposed to predict clinical outcomes, with inconsistent results.Mechanical power (MP), a measure of the energy transfer rate from the ventilator to the respiratory system during mechanical ventilation, might provide solutions for this issue in the framework of predictive, preventive and personalized medicine (PPPM). We explored (1) the impact of ventilator-delivered MP normalized to well-aerated lung (MP_WAL) on physio-anatomical and clinical responses to NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF and (2) the effect of prone position(PP) on MP_WAL.

Methods

We analyzed 216 noninvasively ventilated COVID-19 patients (108 patients receiving PP + NIV and 108 propensity score-matched patients receiving supine NIV) with moderate-to-severe(paO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) AHRF enrolled in the PRO-NIV controlled non-randomized study (ISRCTN23016116).Quantification of differentially aerated lung volumes by lung ultrasonography (LUS) was validated against CT scans. Respiratory parameters were hourly recorded, ABG were performed 1 h after each postural change. Time-weighed average values of ventilatory variables, including MP_WAL, and gas exchange parameters (paO2/FiO2 ratio, dead space indices) were calculated for each ventilatory session. LUS and circulating biomarkers were assessed daily.

Results

Compared with supine position, PP was associated with a 34% MP_WAL reduction, attributable largely to an absolute MP reduction and secondly to an enhanced lung reaeration.Patients receiving a high MP_WAL during the 1^st 24 h of NIV [MP_WAL(day 1)] had higher 28-d NIV failure (HR = 4.33,95%CI:3.09 - 5.98) and death (HR = 5.17,95%CI: 3.01 - 7.35) risks than those receiving a low MP_WAL(day 1).In Cox multivariate analyses, MP_WAL(day 1) remained independently associated with 28-d NIV failure (HR = 1.68,95%CI:1.15-2.41) and death (HR = 1.69,95%CI:1.22-2.32).MP_WAL(day 1) outperformed other power measures and ventilatory variables as predictor of 28-d NIV failure (AUROC = 0.89;95%CI:0.85-0.93) and death (AUROC = 0.89;95%CI:0.85-0.94).MP_WAL(day 1) predicted also gas exchange, ultrasonographic and inflammatory biomarker responses, as markers of VILI, on linear multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

In the framework of PPPM, early bedside MP_WAL calculation may provide added value to predict response to NIV and guide subsequent therapeutic choices i.e. prone position adoption during NIV or upgrading to invasive ventilation, to reduce hazardous MP_WAL delivery, prevent VILI progression and improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19-related AHRF.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13167-023-00325-5.

Awake prone position in COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effects of awake prone positioning (APP) in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched up to June 1, 2022. All randomized trials investigating the effects of APP were included in the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome was intubation rate, and the secondary outcomes included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and mortality. Prescribed subgroup analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized trials enrolling 2324 patients were ultimately included in the present study. The results indicated that APP was associated with a significant reduction in the intubation rate (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.007). However, no differences could be observed in the length of ICU stay or hospitalization or mortality. Subgroup analysis suggested that patients in the ICU settings (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91, P = 0.004), patients whose median APP time was more than 4 h (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.008), and patients with an average baseline SpO₂ to FiO₂ ratio less than 200 (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92) were more likely to benefit from APP, indicated a significantly reduced intubation rate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, nonintubated adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection who underwent APP were shown to have a significantly reduced intubation rate. However, no differences in ICU or hospital length of stay or mortality could be observed between APP and usual care.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022337846.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Awake Prone Decubitus Positioning in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis

To date, recommendations for the implementation of awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxia secondary to SARSCoV2 infection have been extrapolated from prior studies on respiratory distress. Thus, we carried out a systematic review and metaanalysis to evaluate the benefits of pronation on the oxygenation, need for endotracheal intubation (ETI), and mortality of this group of patients. We carried out a systematic search in the PubMed and Embase databases between June 2020 and November 2021. A randomeffects metaanalysis was performed to evaluate the impact of pronation on the ETI and mortality rates. A total of 213 articles were identified, 15 of which were finally included in this review. A significant decrease in the mortality rate was observed in the group of pronated patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.480.99; p = 0.044), but no significant effect was observed on the need for ETI (RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.631.00; p = 0.051). However, a subgroup analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) did reveal a significant decrease in the need for this intervention (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.710.97). Prone positioning was found to significantly reduce mortality, also diminishing the need for ETI, although this effect was statistically significant only in the subgroup analysis of RCTs. Patients' response to awake prone positioning could be greater when this procedure is implemented early and in combination with noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or highflow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy.

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

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

Awake Prone Positioning in Nonintubated Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning research focuses primarily on improving oxygenation and reducing intubation and mortality rates. Secondary outcomes concerning patient safety have been poorly addressed.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on the frequency of adverse events during awake prone positioning and the effects on patients' safety, comfort, and tolerance.

METHODS

This scoping review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL databases were the primary sources for the systematic search.

RESULTS

The review included 19 original studies involving 949 patients who underwent awake prone positioning. No major complications such as death, severe respiratory compromise, or hemodynamic disease were reported. Ten studies reported the following secondary adverse events related to awake prone positioning: skin breakdown (1%-6% of patients), pain (12%-42%), discomfort (35%-43%), vomiting (2%-7%), intolerance (3%-47%), and vascular catheter dislodgment (5%). The duration of awake prone positioning sessions varied widely (0.3-19 hours). Seven studies reported that nurses helped patients during prone positioning maneuvers, including monitoring and surveillance, and 3 studies reported patients placing themselves in the prone position. In 6 studies light or moderate sedation was employed in the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone positioning was not related to cardiorespiratory consequences but was associated with pain, intolerance, discomfort, and patients' refusal. Patients should receive education regarding awake prone positioning to improve their acceptance. Health care professionals should optimize pain control, communication, patient comfort, patient adherence, and correct positioning.

COVID-19 and Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between COVID-19 related variables and hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPI) incidence.

DATA SOURCES

The authors searched four databases: Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The literature search contained key terms such as COVID-19, hospital-acquired pressure injuries, pressure ulcer, pressure injury, decubitus ulcer, and hospitalization.

STUDY SELECTION

The systematic search of the literature identified 489 publications that matched the inclusion criteria. This included peer-reviewed publications that reported HAPI incidence for patients who were hospitalized and COVID-19 positive. Two reviewers performed the screen simultaneously and 19 publications were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers followed a standardized extraction form that included study and patient characteristics, COVID-19 status, HAPI characteristics, prone positioning, length of hospitalization, and HAPI prevention and treatment strategies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A narrative synthesis of the extracted data was carried out because the data obtained were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was HAPI incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified that HAPI incidence was high among men who were COVID-19 positive, had longer hospital stays, experienced prone positioning, and had care teams without a skin and wound care expert. Future research should employ more robust methodology and focus on quantitative modeling to iteratively improve in-patient HAPI guidelines.

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.

The role of prone positioning in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related respiratory failure in non-intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning (PP) is an established and commonly used lung recruitment method for intubated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, with potential benefits in clinical outcome. The role of PP outside the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is debated.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed at assessing the role of PP in death and ICU admission in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of a collaborative multicenter database obtained by merging local non-interventional cohorts.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure were included in a collaborative cohort and classified based on the severity of respiratory failure according to the partial arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) and on clinical severity by the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or ICU admission within 30 days from hospitalization.

RESULTS

PP was used in 114 of 536 study patients (21.8%), more commonly in patients with lower PaO₂/FiO₂ or receiving non-invasive ventilation and less commonly in patients with known comorbidities. A primary study outcome event occurred in 163 patients (30.4%) and in-hospital death in 129 (24.1%). PP was not associated with death or ICU admission (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.78-1.74) and not with death (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61-1.67) at multivariable analysis; PP was an independent predictor of ICU admission (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.53-4.40). The lack of association between PP and death or ICU admission was confirmed at propensity score-matching analysis.

CONCLUSION

PP is used in a non-negligible proportion of non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure and is not associated with death but with ICU admission. The role of PP in this setting merits further evaluation in randomized studies.

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.

Catastrophic COVID-19 Delta Variant Surge in French West Indies: Report of an ICU Triage Policy

OBJECTIVES

Here, we report the management of a catastrophic COVID-19 Delta variant surge, which overloaded ICU capacity, using crisis standards of care (CSC) based on a multiapproach protocol.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

University Hospital of Guadeloupe.

PATIENTS

This study retrospectively included all patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia between August 11, 2021, and September 10, 2021, and were eligible for ICU admission.

INTERVENTION

Based on age, comorbidities, and disease severity, patients were assigned to three groups: Green (ICU admission as soon as possible), Orange (ICU admission after the admission of all patients in the Green group), and Red (no ICU admission).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among the 328 patients eligible for ICU admission, 100 (30%) were assigned to the Green group, 116 (35%) to the Orange group, and 112 (34%) to the Red group. No patient in the Green group died while waiting for an ICU bed, whereas 14 patients (12%) in the Orange group died while waiting for an ICU bed. The 90-day mortality rates were 24%, 37%, and 78% in the Green, Orange, and Red groups, respectively. A total of 130 patients were transferred to the ICU, including 79 from the Green group, 51 from the Orange group, and none from the Red group. Multivariate analysis revealed that among patients admitted to the ICU, death was independently associated with a longer time between ICU referral and ICU admission, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and the number of comorbidities, but not with triage group.

CONCLUSIONS

CSC based on a multiapproach protocol allowed admission of all patients with a good prognosis. Higher mortality was associated with late admission, rather than triage group.

Efficacy and safety of prone position in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prone position has already been demonstrated to improve survival in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome and has been widely performed in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, both in non-intubated and intubated patients. However, the beneficial effect of the prone position in COVID-19 pneumonia still remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the prone position compared with the non-prone in non-intubated and intubated COVID-19 patients, respectively.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, as well as one Korean domestic database, on July 9, 2021, and updated the search 9 times to September 14, 2022. Studies that compared prone and non-prone positions in patients with COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were mortality, need for intubation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 1259 records identified, 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 nonrandomized studies (NRSs) were eligible. In the non-intubated patients, the prone position reduced the intubation rate compared with the non-prone position in 6 RCTs (n = 2156, RR 0.81, P = 0.0002) and in 18 NRSs (n = 3374, RR 0.65, P = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis according to the oxygen delivery method, the results were constant only in the HFNC or NIV subgroup. For mortality, RCTs reported no difference between prone and non-prone groups, but in NRSs, the prone position had a significant advantage in mortality [18 NRSs, n = 3361, relative risk (RR) 0.56, P < 0.00001] regardless of the oxygen delivery methods shown in the subgroup analysis. There was no RCT for intubated patients, and mortality did not differ between the prone and non-prone groups in NRSs. Adverse events reported in both the non-intubated and intubated groups were mild and similar between the prone and non-intubated groups.

CONCLUSION

For non-intubated patients with COVID-19, prone positioning reduced the risk of intubation, particularly in patients requiring a high-flow oxygen system. However, the survival benefit was unclear between the prone and non-prone groups. There was insufficient evidence to support the beneficial effects of prone positioning in intubated patients. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on February 16, 2022 (Registration No.: CRD42022311150 ).

Efficacy of awake prone positioning in patients with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Randomized trials comparing awake prone positioning versus usual care in adults with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure. Information sources were Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 4 March 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for endotracheal intubation and mortality outcomes. GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed for outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, escalation of oxygen modality, change in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

17 trials (2931 patients) met the eligibility criteria. 12 trials were at low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and two were at high risk. Awake prone positioning reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with usual care (crude average 24.2% v 29.8%, relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.94; high certainty). This translates to 55 fewer intubations per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 87 to 19 fewer intubations). Awake prone positioning did not significantly affect secondary outcomes, including mortality (15.6% v 17.2%, relative risk 0.90, 0.76 to 1.07; high certainty), ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.97 days, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.4; low certainty), ICU length of stay (-2.1 days, -4.5 to 0.4; low certainty), hospital length of stay (-0.09 days, -0.69 to 0.51; moderate certainty), and escalation of oxygen modality (21.4% v 23.0%, relative risk 1.04, 0.74 to 1.44; low certainty). Adverse events related to awake prone positioning were uncommon. Bayesian meta-analysis showed a high probability of benefit with awake prone positioning for endotracheal intubation (non-informative prior, mean relative risk 0.83, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.97; posterior probability for relative risk <0.95=96%) but lower probability for mortality (0.90, 0.73 to 1.13; <0.95=68%).

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone positioning compared with usual care reduces the risk of endotracheal intubation in adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19 but probably has little to no effect on mortality or other outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022314856.

Providing respiratory and ventilation care in the face of shifting evidence: current opinion in critical care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the clinical problem and noninvasive treatments of hypoxemia in critically-ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and describe recent advances in evidence supporting bedside decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation, along with awake prone positioning are potentially helpful therapies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy has been widely implemented as a form of oxygen support supported by prepandemic randomized controlled trials showing possible benefit over noninvasive ventilation. Given the sheer volume of patients, noninvasive ventilation was often required, and based on a well conducted randomized controlled trial there was a developing role for helmet-interface noninvasive. Coupled with noninvasive supports, the use of awake prone positioning demonstrated physiological benefits, but randomized controlled trial data did not demonstrate clear outcome superiority.

SUMMARY

The use of noninvasive oxygen strategies and our understanding of the proposed mechanisms are evolving. Variability in patient severity and physiology may dictate a personalized approach to care. High-flow nasal oxygen may be paired with awake and spontaneously breathing prone-positioning to optimize oxygen and lung mechanics but requires further insight before widely applying to clinical practice.

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

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

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.

Application of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Background: During the first wave of COVID-19, the large influx of severely ill patients led to insufficient availability of beds in intensive care units and a shortage of ventilators. The shortage of ventilators, high mortality of intubated patients, and high risk of infections among healthcare workers involved in intubation were the main factors that led to the prevalence of noninvasive respiratory support during the pandemic. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a commonly used, popular form of noninvasive respiratory support. Due to its unique physiological effects, HFNC can provide a high fraction of humidified oxygen and is satisfactorily comfortable for patients with COVID-19. However, before the COVID-19 era, there was little evidence on the application of HFNC in patients with acute respiratory failure caused by viral infection. Aim: This narrative review provides an overview of recent studies on the use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main topics discussed include the probability of successful use of HFNC in these patients, whether late intubation increases mortality, the availability of convenient and accurate monitoring tools, comparison of HFNC with other types of noninvasive respiratory support, whether HFNC combined with the prone position is more clinically useful, and strategies to further reduce the infection risk associated with HFNC. The implication of this study is to identify some of the limitations and research gaps of the current literature and to give some advice for future research.

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.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning in non-Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) has been considered as a feasible treatment for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of APP remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effect of APP on intubation rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure.

Methods

Relevant studies published from January 1, 2020, to June 17, 2022, were systematically searched. The primary outcomes were the intubation rate and mortality; the secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events.

Results

Of 5746 identified publications, 22 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (N = 5146 patients). In comparison to the non-APP group, APP could decrease the intubation rates (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.83; P = .001), particularly in the subgroup of the daily median duration of APP > 8 h and in the subgroup of receiving high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Patients treated with APP were associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; P = .0008), but no mortality benefit was found in the APP group in the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.71; P = .56).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated that APP could be an effective strategy to avoid intubation without detrimental effects in non-intubated patients with COVID-19, especially for patients requiring HFNC or NIV, and the daily APP duration with the target of minimally eight hours was suggested. In the subgroup of RCTs, the pooled results did not demonstrate any benefit of APP on mortality. Given the limited number of RCTs, further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the results.

INPLASY registration number

INPLASY2021110037.

Awake Prone-Positioning in Patients on Non-Invasive Ventilation for Management of SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Patients with corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19)-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are often on non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and use of awake prone positioning (PP) may pose concern in terms of feasibility, efficacy and side effects. This systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of awake PP along with NIV in them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from the inception of COVID-19 until 15 August 2021. Various factors including feasibility, interface used, outcome, efficacy, side effects and limitations in both intensive care unit (ICU) and Non-ICU setups were noted.

RESULTS

A total of 12 original articles and six case series including 359 patients were involved. Out of it, 40% (n = 122) of patients were in ICU and 60% (n = 237) in Non-ICU areas. Four clinical studies and four case series including 114 patients had evaluated PP along with helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). All had found PP with helmet CPAP to be feasible and efficacious; however, only one study documented the sustained improvement in oxygenation i.e., 12 h after PP.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review observed moderate to serious risk of bias amongst the included studies along with heterogeneity in terms of varied respiratory support amongst patients. However, the use of awake PP in patients on NIV has been found to be feasible and efficacious with no adverse events.

Prone position reduces the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 progressing to severe or even critical cases: a retrospective study

Background

To investigate whether prone position can reduce the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who progress to severe or critical illness.

Methods

The prone position group was treated in prone position on the day of admission in addition to conventional treatment. Indicators such as saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO₂), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and prone position-related adverse events were recorded before prone ventilation, 5 min after prone position and 30 min after prone position. Meanwhile, the cases of severe and critical patients, the percentage of transformation and the final clinical outcome of this group were analyzed. Conversion rates and mortality were calculated for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 retrieved from the database who received only conventional care without combined prone positioning as control group.

Results

(1) A total of 34 patients were included in prone position group. There were significant differences in SpO₂ between the first 4 days after admission and the day of discharge (F = 3.17, P < 0.001). (2) The main complications were back and neck muscle soreness (55.9%), followed by abdominal distension (8.9%). (3) In control group, a total of 4873 cases of mild and moderate patients were included from 19 literatures, with an average deterioration rate of 22.7% and mortality rate of 1.7%. (4) In prone position group, there were no severe or critical transformation cases and also no death cases. The prone position group had a significantly lower deterioration rate when compared with the control group (χ² = 9.962, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Prone position improves SpO₂ in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. It can also reduce the percentage of mild or moderate patients progressing to severe or critical patients. The application of prone position is a simple, feasible, safe and effective treatment method in such patients.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Airway and resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures <30 cm H₂O. Limited data support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NBMA), recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

CONCLUSION

This review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

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.

SIMEU position paper on non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia

The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.