Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxaemia due to covid-19: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial (COVID-PRONE)

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.

Awake pronation with helmet CPAP in early COVID-19 ARDS patients: effects on respiratory effort and distribution of ventilation assessed by EIT

Prone positioning with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is widely used for respiratory support in awake patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. We aimed to assess the respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS treated by CPAP in awake prone position. We studied 16 awake COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. The study protocol consisted of a randomized sequence of supine and prone position with imposed positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 and 10 cmH2O delivered by helmet CPAP. Respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation were assessed through esophageal pressure (PES) and electrical impedance tomography (EIT). At the end of each 20-min phase, arterial blood gas analysis was performed, and PES swing and EIT tracings were recorded for the calculation of the respiratory mechanics and regional ventilation. The patient's position had no significant effects on respiratory mechanics. EIT analysis did not detect differences among global indices of ventilation. A significant proportion of pixels in the sternal region of interest showed an increase in compliance from the supine to prone position and PaO2/FIO2 increased accordingly. The best improvement of both PaO2/FIO2 and sternal compliance was obtained in the prone position with PEEP 10 cmH2O. In the studied subjects, prone positioning during CPAP treatment raised oxygenation without improvement of "protective" ventilation or global ventilatory inhomogeneity indices. Prone positioning with higher PEEP significantly increased the compliance of sternal regions.

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.

From Emergence to Endemicity: A Comprehensive Review of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), later renamed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019. Initially, the China office of the World Health Organization was informed of numerous cases of pneumonia of unidentified etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province at the end of 2019. This would subsequently result in a global pandemic with millions of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and millions of deaths reported to the WHO. We have analyzed most of the data published since the beginning of the pandemic to compile this comprehensive review of SARS-CoV-2. We looked at the core ideas, such as the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical symptoms, diagnostics, histopathologic findings, consequences, therapies, and vaccines. We have also included the long-term effects and myths associated with some therapeutics of COVID-19. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 virology, vaccines, medicines, and significant variants identified during the course of the pandemic. Our review article is intended to provide medical practitioners with a better understanding of the fundamental sciences, clinical treatment, and prevention of COVID-19. As of May 2023, this paper contains the most recent data made accessible.

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.

Barriers and facilitators of adherence to awake prone positioning: a qualitative study using the COM-B model

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning (APP) is a recommended therapy for non-intubated ARDS patients, but adherence can be challenging. Understanding the barriers and facilitators of adherence to APP is essential to increase the adherence of therapy and improve patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of adherence to awake prone ventilation using a qualitative approach and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model.

METHODS

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with patients involved in awake prone ventilation. Data were analyzed using an adapted inductive thematical approach and mapped onto the COM-B model to identify barriers and facilitators to adherence of APP.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were interviewed (aged 55-92 years). Fifteen themes were identified and mapped directly on to the six COM-B constructs, with "physical challenges" related to physical capability being the primary barrier. These COM-B sub-items reflected five other barriers, including low self-efficacy(M), treatment environment(O), availability of time(O), misconceptions about the treatment(C), and insufficient knowledge(C). Key facilitators in adhering to APP were ability to identify and overcome obstacles(C), availability and affordability of treatment(O), family influences(O), beliefs and trust in treatment(M), fear about the disease(M), and perceived benefits(M). In addition, three factors played the role of both facilitator and barrier, such as media influences(O), healthcare influences(O), and behavioral habits(M).

CONCLUSION

The COM-B model was proved to be a useful framework for identifying the barriers and facilitators of adherence to awake prone ventilation. The findings suggest that adherence behavior is a dynamic and balanced process and interventions aimed at improving adherence to APP should address the barriers related to capability, opportunity, and motivation. Healthcare providers should focus on providing proper guidance and training, creating a comfortable environment, and offering social support to improve patients' capability and opportunity. Additionally, promoting patients' positive beliefs and attitudes towards the treatment and addressing misconceptions and fears can further enhance patients' motivation to adhere to the treatment plan.

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.

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.

Techniques for Oxygenation and Ventilation in Coronavirus Disease 2019

This paper discusses mechanisms of hypoxemia and interventions to oxygenate critically ill patients with COVID-19 which range from nasal cannula to noninvasive and mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive ventilation includes continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with or without proning. The evidence for each of these modalities is discussed and thereafter, when to transition to mechanical ventilation (MV). Various techniques of MV, again with and without proning, and rescue strategies which would include extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) when it is available and permissive hypoxemia where it is not, are discussed.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of 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.

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 ).

Effectiveness of early awake self proning strategy in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 hypoxemia: an open-labelled randomized clinical trial from Jodhpur, India

Awake self-proning is being used widely as respiratory support in COVID-19 hypoxemia, in resource-limited settings. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of early awake self-proning in preventing mortality and the need for intubation in adults with moderate COVID-19 hypoxemia. In this randomized clinical trial with inten-tion-to-treat analysis, we enrolled eligible adults with COVID-19 hypoxemia (SpO2 <94%), requiring supplemental oxygen via nasal prongs or facemask from a tertiary-care setting in Jodhpur, India between June 15 to December 24, 2020. Awake proning comprised of 4-hour cycles with prone position maintained 2 h per cycle. The control group did not maintain any specific position. All participants received standard care. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortal-ity and requirement for mechanical ventilation. Of 502 participants included, mean (SD) age was 59.7 (12.7) years with 124 women (24.6%); 257 were randomized to awake-proning, 245 to control group and all 502 were included for follow-up mortality analysis. Mortality at follow-up was 16.3% in the awake-prone and 15.1% in the control group [OR:1.10 (0.68-1.78), p=0.703). The requirement of mechanical ventilation was 10% in both groups (p=0.974). Survival time (in days) was not significantly different between the groups [Log-rank test, HR: 1.08 (95% CI, 0.70-1.68), p=0.726]. Likewise, time to intubation was comparable (Log-rank test, HR: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.56-1.70), p=0.974). Hence, awake self-proning did not improve survival or requirement of mechanical-ventilation in non-intubated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 hypox-emia. Trial Registration: Clinical trial registry of India, ID: CTRI/2020/06/025804.   The trial is accessible from WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) at https://trialsearch.who.int ***************************************************************   *Appendix Authors list  Deepak Kumar1, Gopal Krishna Bohra1, Nishant Kumar Chauhan2, Nikhil Kothari3, Vijaya Lakshmi Nag4 Sanjeev Misra5  1Department of Internal Medicine; 2Department of Pulmonary Medicine; 3Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care; 4Department of Microbiology; 5Department of Surgical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022314856.

Lessons learned in mechanical ventilation/oxygen support in COVID19

The clinical spectrum of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection or mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, with severe cases leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multiorgan involvement. The clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) changed over the course of the pandemic, being adjusted as more evidence became available. This article will review how the ventilatory management of COVID-19 ARDS evolved and will conclude with current evidence-based recommendations.

Variation in the risk of death due to COVID-19: An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults

BACKGROUND

There is wide variation in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether this is related to patient or hospital factors is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of mortality for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to determine whether the majority of that variation was explained by differences in patient characteristics across sites.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An international multicenter cohort study of hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 enrolled from 10 hospitals in Ontario, Canada and 8 hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark between January 1, 2020 and November 11, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Inpatient mortality. We used a multivariable multilevel regression model to compare the in-hospital mortality risk across hospitals and quantify the variation attributable to patient-level factors.

RESULTS

There were 1364 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in Ontario (n = 1149) and in Denmark (n = 215). In Ontario, the absolute risk of in-hospital mortality ranged from 12.0% to 39.8% across hospitals. Ninety-eight percent of the variation in mortality in Ontario was explained by differences in the characteristics of the patients. In Denmark, the absolute risk of inpatients ranged from 13.8% to 20.6%. One hundred percent of the variation in mortality in Denmark was explained by differences in the characteristics of the inpatients.

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in inpatient COVID-19 mortality across hospitals, which was largely explained by patient-level factors, such as age and severity of presenting illness. However, hospital-level factors that could have affected care, including resource availability and capacity, were not taken into account. These findings highlight potential limitations in comparing crude mortality rates across hospitals for the purposes of reporting on the quality of care.

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.

In COVID-19 acute hypoxemia, awake prone positioning vs. usual care did not reduce intubation at 30 d

SOURCE CITATION

Alhazzani W, Parhar KK, Weatherald J, et al. Effect of awake prone positioning on endotracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327:2104-13. 35569448.

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.