Prone Ventilation for Patients with Mild or Moderate Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Impact of intensive prone position therapy on outcomes in intubated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Previous retrospective research has shown that maintaining prone positioning (PP) for an average of 40 h is associated with an increase of survival rates in intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study aims to determine whether a cumulative PP duration of more than 32 h during the first 2 days of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with increased survival compared to a cumulative PP duration of 32 h or less.

METHODS

This study is an ancillary analysis from a previous large international observational study involving intubated patients placed in PP in the first 48 h of ICU admission in 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Given that PP is recommended for a 16-h daily duration, intensive PP was defined as a cumulated duration of more than 32 h during the first 48 h, whereas standard PP was defined as a duration equal to or less than 32 h. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. The primary outcome was mortality at day 60. An Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting (IPCW) Cox model including a target emulation trial method was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Out of 2137 intubated patients, 753 were placed in PP during the first 48 h of ICU admission. The intensive PP group (n = 79) had a median PP duration of 36 h, while standard PP group (n = 674) had a median of 16 h during the first 48 h. Sixty-day mortality rate in the intensive PP group was 39.2% compared to 38.7% in the standard PP group (p = 0.93). Twenty-eight-day and 90-day mortality as well as the ventilator-free days until day 28 were similar in both groups. After IPCW, there was no significant difference in mortality at day 60 between the two-study groups (HR 0.95 [0.52-1.74], p = 0.87 and HR 1.1 [0.77-1.57], p = 0.61 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This secondary analysis of a large multicenter European cohort of intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 found that intensive PP during the first 48 h did not provide a survival benefit compared to standard PP.

Effect of Extended Prone Positioning in Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202390072.

Prolonged Prone Position Ventilation Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in Intubated COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

Prone position ventilation (PPV) is resource-intensive, yet the optimal strategy for PPV in intubated patients with COVID-19 is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a prolonged (24 or more h) PPV strategy improve mortality in intubated COVID-19 patients compared with intermittent (∼16 h with daily supination) PPV?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted intubated COVID-19 patients treated with PPV between March 11 and May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality and prone-related complications. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) were used to control for potential treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

Of the COVID-19 patients who received PPV, 157 underwent prolonged and 110 underwent intermittent PPV. Patients undergoing prolonged PPV had reduced 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.475; 95% CI, 0.336-0.670; P < .001) and 90-day (aHR, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.461-0.883; P = .006) mortality compared with intermittent PPV. In patients with Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 150 at the time of pronation, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced 30-day (aHR, 0.357; 95% CI, 0.213-0.597; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (aHR, 0.562; 95% CI, 0.357-0.884; P = .008). Patients treated with prolonged PPV underwent fewer pronation and supination events (median, 1; 95% CI, 1-2 vs 3; 95% CI, 1-4; P < .001). PPV strategy was not associated with overall PPV-related complications, although patients receiving prolonged PPV had increased rates of facial edema and lower rates of peri-proning hypotension.

INTERPRETATION

Among intubated COVID-19 patients who received PPV, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced mortality. Prolonged PPV was associated with fewer pronation and supination events and a small increase in rates of facial edema. These findings suggest that prolonged PPV is a safe, effective strategy for mortality reduction in intubated COVID-19 patients.

Prone position: how understanding and clinical application of a technique progress with time

Historical background

The prone position was first proposed on theoretical background in 1974 (more advantageous distribution of mechanical ventilation). The first clinical report on 5 ARDS patients in 1976 showed remarkable improvement of oxygenation after pronation. 

Pathophysiology

The findings in CT scans enhanced the use of prone position in ARDS patients. The main mechanism of the improved gas exchange seen in the prone position is nowadays attributed to a dorsal ventilatory recruitment, with a substantially unchanged distribution of perfusion. Regardless of the gas exchange, the primary effect of the prone position is a more homogenous distribution of ventilation, stress and strain, with similar size of pulmonary units in dorsal and ventral regions. In contrast, in the supine position the ventral regions are more expanded compared with the dorsal regions, which leads to greater ventral stress and strain, induced by mechanical ventilation.

Outcome in ARDS

The number of clinical studies paralleled the evolution of the pathophysiological understanding. The first two clinical trials in 2001 and 2004 were based on the hypothesis that better oxygenation would lead to a better survival and the studies were more focused on gas exchange than on lung mechanics. The equations better oxygenation = better survival was disproved by these and other larger trials (ARMA trial). However, the first studies provided signals that some survival advantages were possible in a more severe ARDS, where both oxygenation and lung mechanics were impaired. The PROSEVA trial finally showed the benefits of prone position on mortality supporting the thesis that the clinical advantages of prone position, instead of improved gas exchange, were mainly due to a less harmful mechanical ventilation and better distribution of stress and strain. In less severe ARDS, in spite of a better gas exchange, reduced mechanical stress and strain, and improved oxygenation, prone position was ineffective on outcome.

Prone position and COVID-19

The mechanisms of oxygenation impairment in early COVID-19 are different than in typical ARDS and relate more on perfusion alteration than on alveolar consolidation/collapse, which are minimal in the early phase. Bronchial shunt may also contribute to the early COVID-19 hypoxemia. Therefore, in this phase, the oxygenation improvement in prone position is due to a better matching of local ventilation and perfusion, primarily caused by the perfusion component. Unfortunately, the conditions for improved outcomes, i.e. a better distribution of stress and strain, are almost absent in this phase of COVID-19 disease, as the lung parenchyma is nearly fully inflated. Due to some contradictory results, further studies are needed to better investigate the effect of prone position on outcome in COVID-19 patients.

Graphical Abstract

Early prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19: a propensity score analysis from the multicentric cohort COVID-ICU network-the ProneCOVID study

Background

Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19.

Methods

All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score.

Results

Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively).

Conclusions

In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03949-7.

To prone or not to prone ARDS patients on ECMO

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at  https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from  https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Development of a Prone Team and Exploration of Staff Perceptions During COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

As intensive care unit bed capacity doubled because of COVID-19 cases, nursing leaders created a prone team to support labor-intensive prone positioning of patients with COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. The goal of the prone team was to reduce workload on intensive care teams, standardize the proning process, mitigate pressure injuries and turning-related adverse events, and ensure prone team safety.

METHODS

Staff were trained using a hybrid learning model focused on prone-positioning techniques, pressure injury prevention, and turning-related adverse events.

RESULTS

No adverse events occurred to patients or members of the prone team. The prone team mitigated pressure injuries using prevention strategies. The prone team and intensive care unit staff were highly satisfied with their experience.

CONCLUSION

The prone team provided support for critically ill patients, and team members reported feeling supported and empowered. Intensive care unit staff were highly satisfied with the prone team.

Multivariate Meta-Analysis of the Mortality Effect of Prone Positioning in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of prone positioning (PP) as therapy of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has varied in recent meta-analyses. The efficacy question was reviewed using a cohesive multivariate meta-analysis model incorporating all available common time-point data.

METHODS

Data from a core group of 8 randomized controlled trials (2001-2013) utilized in 8 current meta-analyses (2014-2017) was extracted for common time points. Multivariate meta-analysis and meta-regression models for prone-hours per day, mechanical ventilation tidal-volume and baseline patient PaO₂/FiO₂, considered as continuous and categorical predictors, determined the pooled relative risk (RR) of mortality for prone versus supine positioning.

RESULTS

Mortality RR at 28-30 days, 2-3 months and 6-months was not significant overall (P > 0.05). Meta-regression of categorical predictors indicated significant mortality reduction (P ≤ 0.001) for ≥ 12 prone-hours (versus < 12), lung protective ventilation (versus none) and moderate-severe ARDS (versus all ARDS). Meta-regressions of continuous predictors were also significant (P ≤ 0.021) and yielded treatment inflection points of efficacious therapy for ≥ 12 prone-hours per day, ≤ 8.5 mL/kg tidal volume and ≤ PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of 130.

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality treatment effect of PP in ARDS, was not demonstrated in the unadjusted meta-analysis model. Moderator effects indicated consistent significant benefit of prone positioning. In the absence of individual patient data, multivariate models provide more decisive conclusions than individual time point analyses.

Safety and Outcomes of Prolonged Usual Care Prone Position Mechanical Ventilation to Treat Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

OBJECTIVES

Prone position ventilation is a potentially life-saving ancillary intervention but is not widely adopted for coronavirus disease 2019 or acute respiratory distress syndrome from other causes. Implementation of lung-protective ventilation including prone positioning for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome is limited by isolation precautions and personal protective equipment scarcity. We sought to determine the safety and associated clinical outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with prolonged prone position ventilation without daily repositioning.

DESIGN

Retrospective single-center study.

SETTING

Community academic medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Sequential mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

INTERVENTIONS

Lung-protective ventilation and prolonged protocolized prone position ventilation without daily supine repositioning. Supine repositioning was performed only when Fio2 less than 60% with positive end-expiratory pressure less than 10 cm H2O for greater than or equal to 4 hours.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary safety outcome: proportion with pressure wounds by Grades (0-4). Secondary outcomes: hospital survival, length of stay, rates of facial and limb edema, hospital-acquired infections, device displacement, and measures of lung mechanics and oxygenation. Eighty-seven coronavirus disease 2019 patients were mechanically ventilated. Sixty-one were treated with prone position ventilation, whereas 26 did not meet criteria. Forty-two survived (68.9%). Median (interquartile range) time from intubation to prone position ventilation was 0.28 d (0.11-0.80 d). Total prone position ventilation duration was 4.87 d (2.08-9.97 d). Prone position ventilation was applied for 30.3% (18.2-42.2%) of the first 28 days. Pao2:Fio2 diverged significantly by day 3 between survivors 147 (108-164) and nonsurvivors 107 (85-146), mean difference -9.632 (95% CI, -48.3 to 0.0; p = 0·05). Age, driving pressure, day 1, and day 3 Pao2:Fio2 were predictive of time to death. Thirty-eight (71.7%) developed ventral pressure wounds that were associated with prone position ventilation duration and day 3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. Limb weakness occurred in 58 (95.1%) with brachial plexus palsies in five (8.2%). Hospital-acquired infections other than central line-associated blood stream infections were infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged prone position ventilation was feasible and relatively safe with implications for wider adoption in treating critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients and acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiologies.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is defined as the rapid onset of non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema resulting in respiratory failure and hypoxemia. Efforts over the past 25 years, such as those of the ARDS and Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Networks, have demonstrated a praiseworthy collaboration to further optimize the management of ARDS. However, improvements have been only moderate and ARDS remains a leading cause of mortality in the perioperative and critical care setting. Recently, the significant morbidity and mortality of ARDS have been emphasized by its high incidence in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A major hurdle to reducing ARDS mortality is that current treatment is limited to preventive measures – such as the use of lung-protective ventilation. Therapeutic approaches targeting the underlying inflammatory lung disease are areas of intensive research, but have not been clinically implemented. Nevertheless, basic science and clinical research efforts that are aimed at identifying novel treatment approaches and further improving outcomes for ARDS are ongoing. Here, we review evidence-based management approaches for ARDS, while highlighting those being investigated or heavily utilized in ARDS associated with COVID-19.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome remains a condition that carries a high mortality. Evidence-based clinical management and emerging concepts for new therapies for COVID-19 are reviewed.

Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom

In ARDS patients, the change from supine to prone position generates a more even distribution of the gas–tissue ratios along the dependent–nondependent axis and a more homogeneous distribution of lung stress and strain. The change to prone position is generally accompanied by a marked improvement in arterial blood gases, which is mainly due to a better overall ventilation/perfusion matching. Improvement in oxygenation and reduction in mortality are the main reasons to implement prone position in patients with ARDS. The main reason explaining a decreased mortality is less overdistension in non-dependent lung regions and less cyclical opening and closing in dependent lung regions. The only absolute contraindication for implementing prone position is an unstable spinal fracture. The maneuver to change from supine to prone and vice versa requires a skilled team of 4–5 caregivers. The most frequent adverse events are pressure sores and facial edema. Recently, the use of prone position has been extended to non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients affected with COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of this intervention on outcomes are still uncertain.

Duration of prone position sessions: a prospective cohort study

Background

Prone position (PP) is highly recommended in moderate-to-severe ARDS. However, the optimal duration of PP sessions remains unclear. We searched to evaluate the time required to obtain the maximum physiological effect, and to search for parameters related to patient survival in PP.

Methods and results

It was a prospective, monocentric, physiological study. We included in the study all prone-positioned patients in our ICU between June 2016 and January 2018. Pulmonary mechanics, data from volumetric capnography and arterial blood gas were recorded before prone positioning, 2 h after proning, before return to a supine position (SP) and 2 h after return to SP. Dynamic parameters were recorded before proning and every 30 min during the session until 24 h. 103 patients (ARDS 95%) were included performing 231 PP sessions with a mean length of 21.5 ± 5 h per session. They presented a significant increase in pH, static compliance and P_aO₂/F_iO₂ with a significant decrease in P_aCO₂, P_plat, phase 3 slope of the volumetric capnography, P_etCO₂, V_D/V_T-phy and ΔP. The beneficial physiological effects continued after 16 h of PP and at least up to 24 h in some patients. The evolution of the respiratory parameters during the first session and also during the pooled sessions did not find any predictor of response to PP, whether before, during or 2 h after the return in SP.

Conclusions

PP sessions should be prolonged at least 24 h and be extended in the event that the P_aO₂/F_iO₂ ratio at 24 h remains below 150, especially since no criteria can predict which patient will benefit or not from it.

Trial registration The trial has been registered on 28 June 2016 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02816190) (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02816190?term=propocap&rank=1).