Lung response to prone positioning in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19

Monitoring lung recruitment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores lung recruitment monitoring, covering techniques, challenges, and future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various methodologies, including respiratory system mechanics evaluation, arterial bold gases (ABGs) analysis, lung imaging, and esophageal pressure (Pes) measurement are employed to assess lung recruitment. In support to ABGs analysis, the assessment of respiratory mechanics with hysteresis and recruitment-to-inflation ratio has the potential to evaluate lung recruitment and enhance mechanical ventilation setting. Lung imaging tools, such as computed tomography scanning, lung ultrasound, and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) confirm their utility in following lung recruitment with the advantage of radiation-free and repeatable application at the bedside for sonography and EIT. Pes enables the assessment of dorsal lung tendency to collapse through end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure. Despite their value, these methodologies may require an elevated expertise in their application and data interpretation. However, the information obtained by these methods may be conveyed to build machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms aimed at improving the clinical decision-making process.

SUMMARY

Monitoring lung recruitment is a crucial component of managing patients with severe lung conditions, within the framework of a personalized ventilatory strategy. Although challenges persist, emerging technologies offer promise for a personalized approach to care in the future.

Lung Ultrasound Evaluation of Aeration Changes in Response to Prone Positioning in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Patients Requiring Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning (PP) has been proven to be a beneficial approach in enhancing survival outcomes for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who need venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) support. The study utilized bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) to evaluate changes in lung aeration caused by PP in ARDS patients receiving V-V ECMO.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study involved adult ARDS patients requiring V-V ECMO. The assessment of LUS involved examining specific dorsal lung regions, encompassing 16 areas, during three pre-defined time points: baseline (10 minutes prior), three-hour PP positioning, and 10-minute post-supine repositioning, all within the initial three days. Based on the oxygenation response to PP, patients were categorized into responder and non-responder groups. The primary outcome was LUS score changes during the initial three-day period. Secondary outcomes examined the impact of PP on the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (P/F) ratio, V-V ECMO weaning success, length of ICU stay, and hospital survival.

RESULTS

Among the enrolled patients (27 in total), 16 were responders and 11 were non-responders. In the responder group, the global LUS score underwent a significant reduction from 26.38 ± 4.965 at baseline to 20.75 ± 3.337 (p < 0.001) after the first PP session, which further decreased to 15.94 ± 2.816 (p< 0.001) after three days. However, no significant differences were observed among PP non-responders. The oxygenation reaction yielded comparable results. There was a significant correlation between the duration of daily PP and the reduction in global LUS score among PP responders (r = -0.855, p < 0.001). In cases where the global LUS score decreased by > 7.5 after three days of PP, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting ECMO weaning success was 0.815, while it was 0.761 for predicting hospital survival.

CONCLUSION

LUS has the potential to predict the response to PP and evaluate the prognosis of ARDS patients with V-V ECMO, although more studies are demanded in the future.

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.

Extended prone positioning for intubated ARDS: a review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several centers had independently reported extending prone positioning beyond 24 h. Most of these centers reported maintaining patients in prone position until significant clinical improvement was achieved. One center reported extending prone positioning for organizational reasons relying on a predetermined fixed duration. A recent study argued that a clinically driven extension of prone positioning beyond 24 h could be associated with reduced mortality. On a patient level, the main benefit of extending prone positioning beyond 24 h is to maintain a more homogenous distribution of the gas-tissue ratio, thus delaying the increase in overdistention observed when patients are returned to the supine position. On an organizational level, extending prone positioning reduces the workload for both doctors and nurses, which might significantly enhance the quality of care in an epidemic. It might also reduce the incidence of accidental catheter and tracheal tube removal, thereby convincing intensive care units with low incidence of ARDS to prone patients more systematically. The main risk associated with extended prone positioning is an increased incidence of pressure injuries. Up until now, retrospective studies are reassuring, but prospective evaluation is needed.

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.

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Exogenous surfactant reduces inflammation and redox imbalance in rats under prone or supine mechanical ventilation

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving therapy for patients with acute or chronic respiratory failure. Despite, it can also cause lung injury by inducing or worsening inflammatory responses and oxidative stress. Several clinical approaches have protective effects on the lungs, including the prone position and exogenous surfactant; however, few studies have evaluated the association between the two strategies, especially in individuals without previous lung injury. We tested the hypothesis that the effects of the homogenization in lung aeration caused by the prone position in association with the anti-inflammatory properties of exogenous surfactant pre-treatment could have a cumulative protective effect against ventilator-induced lung injury. Therefore, Wistar rats were divided into four experimental groups: Mechanical Ventilation in Supine Position (MVSP), Mechanical Ventilation in Prone position (MVPP), Mechanical Ventilation in Supine Position + surfactant (MVSPS), and Mechanical Ventilation in Prone Position + Surfactant (MVPPS). The intranasal instillation of a porcine surfactant (Curosurf®) was performed in the animals of MVSPS and MVPPS 1 h before the MV, all the rats were subjected to MV for 1 h. The prone position in association with surfactant decreased mRNA expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in ventilated animals compared to the supine position; in addition, the NfκB was lower in MVPP, MVSPS and MVPPS when compared to MVSP. However, it had no effects on oxidative stress caused by MV. Pre-treatment with exogenous surfactant was more efficient in promoting lung protection than the prone position, as it also reduced oxidative damage in the lung parenchyma. Nevertheless, the surfactant did not cause additional improvements in most parameters that were also improved by the prone position. Our results indicate that the pre-treatment with exogenous surfactant, regardless of the position adopted in mechanical ventilation, preserves the original lung histoarchitecture, reduces redox imbalance, and reduces acute inflammatory responses caused by mechanical ventilation in healthy adult Wistar rats.

Lung ultrasound to evaluate aeration changes in response to recruitment maneuver and prone positioning in intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: preliminary study

BACKGROUND

This single-center preliminary prospective observational study used bedside ultrasound to assess the lung aeration modifications induced by recruitment maneuver and pronation in intubated patients with acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). All adult intubated COVID-19 patients suitable for pronation were screened. After enrollment, patients underwent 1 h in a volume-controlled mode in supine position (baseline) followed by a 35-cmH₂O-recruitment maneuver of 2 min (recruitment). Final step involved volume-controlled mode in prone position set as at baseline (pronation). At the end of the first two steps and 1 h after pronation, a lung ultrasound was performed, and global and regional lung ultrasound score (LUS) were analyzed. Data sets are presented as a median and 25th-75th percentile.

RESULTS

From January to May 2022, 20 patients were included and analyzed. Global LUS reduced from 26.5 (23.5-30.0) at baseline to 21.5 (18.0-23.3) and 23.0 (21.0-26.3) at recruitment (p < 0.001) and pronation (p = 0.004). In the anterior lung regions, the regional LUS were 1.8 (1.1-2.0) following recruitment and 2.0 (1.6-2.2) in the supine (p = 0.008) and 2.0 (1.8-2.3) in prone position (p = 0.023). Regional LUS diminished from 2.3 (2.0-2.5) in supine to 2.0 (1.8-2.0) with recruitment in the lateral lung zones (p = 0.036). Finally, in the posterior lung units, regional LUS improved from 2.5 (2.3-2.8) in supine to 2.3 (1.8-2.5) through recruitment (p = 0.003) and 1.8 (1.3-2.2) with pronation (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our investigation, recruitment maneuver and prone positioning demonstrated an enhancement in lung aeration when compared to supine position, as assessed by bedside lung ultrasound.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Number NCT05209477, prospectively registered and released on 01/26/2022.

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 ).

Effect of prone positioning on end-expiratory lung volume, strain and oxygenation change over time in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A prospective physiological study

BACKGROUND

Prone position (PP) is a recommended intervention in severe classical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Changes in lung resting volume, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange during a 16-h cycle of PP in COVID-19 ARDS has not been yet elucidated.

METHODS

Patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS were enrolled between May and September 2021 in a prospective cohort study in a University Teaching Hospital. Lung resting volume was quantitatively assessed by multiple breath nitrogen wash-in/wash-out technique to measure the end-expiratory lung volume (EELV). Timepoints included the following: Baseline, Supine Position (S1); start of PP (P0), and every 4-h (P4; P8; P12) until the end of PP (P16); and Supine Position (S2). Respiratory mechanics and gas exchange were assessed at each timepoint.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

40 mechanically ventilated patients were included. EELV/predicted body weight (PBW) increased significantly over time. The highest increase was observed at P4. The highest absolute EELV/PBW values were observed at the end of the PP (P16 vs S1; median 33.5 ml/kg [InterQuartileRange, 28.2-38.7] vs 23.4 ml/kg [18.5-26.4], p < 0.001). Strain decreased immediately after PP and remained stable between P4 and P16. PaO2/FiO2 increased during PP reaching the highest level at P12 (P12 vs S1; 163 [138-217] vs 81 [65-97], p < 0.001). EELV/PBW, strain and PaO2/FiO2 decreased at S2 although EELV/PBW and PaO2/FiO2 were still significantly higher as compared to S1. Both absolute values over time and changes of strain and PaO2/FiO2 at P16 and S2 versus S1 were strongly associated with EELV/PBW levels.

CONCLUSION

In severe COVID-19 ARDS, EELV steadily increased over a 16-h cycle of PP peaking at P16. Strain gradually decreased, and oxygenation improved over time. Changes in strain and oxygenation at the end of PP and back to SP were strongly associated with changes in EELV/PBW. Whether the change in EELV and oxygenation during PP may play a role on outcomes in COVID-ARDS deserves further investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04818164].

COVID-19-Related ARDS: Key Mechanistic Features and Treatments

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous syndrome historically characterized by the presence of severe hypoxemia, high-permeability pulmonary edema manifesting as diffuse alveolar infiltrate on chest radiograph, and reduced compliance of the integrated respiratory system as a result of widespread compressive atelectasis and fluid-filled alveoli. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is a novel etiology caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that may present with distinct clinical features as a result of the viral pathobiology unique to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, severe injury to the pulmonary vascular endothelium, accompanied by the presence of diffuse microthrombi in the pulmonary microcirculation, can lead to a clinical presentation in which the severity of impaired gas exchange becomes uncoupled from lung capacity and respiratory mechanics. The purpose of this review is to highlight the key mechanistic features of C-ARDS and to discuss the implications these features have on its treatment. In some patients with C-ARDS, rigid adherence to guidelines derived from clinical trials in the pre-COVID era may not be appropriate.