Awake prone positioning for hypoxaemic respiratory failure: past, COVID-19 and perspectives

Optimal timing for awake prone positioning in Covid-19 patients: Insights from an observational study from two centers

BACKGROUND

The widespread application and interest in awake prone positioning stems from its ease and availability and its ability to enhance patients' oxygenation. Nevertheless, due to the absence of consensus over the regimen of awake prone positioning, the efficacy of awake prone positioning remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the optimal regimen for awake prone positioning, including the timing of initiation, ideal daily duration, and strategies for improving patient comfort and encouraging adherence.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING(S)

Two university-affiliated hospitals in Shanghai.

PARTICIPANTS

Between December 2022 and February 2023, a total of 475 patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia who received awake prone positioning were observed.

METHODS

The data were collected from the hospital's electronic medical record system. The differentiation efficiency of peripheral blood oxygen saturation [SpO2]:fractional oxygen concentration in inspired air [FiO2] ratio at first awake prone positioning for different outcomes was tested by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the relationship between time to occurrence of 28-day outcomes and collected variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted with the percentage of 28-day outcomes according to the SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning after controlling covariates through Cox regression.

RESULTS

The best efficiency in predicting patient outcomes was achieved when the cutoff SpO2:FiO2 ratio at first awake prone positioning was 200. Patients with a reduced SpO2:FiO2 ratio (≤200) experienced more adverse respiratory outcomes (RR = 5.42, 95%CI [3.35, 8.76], p < 0·001) and higher mortality (RR = 16.64, 95%CI [5.53, 50.13], p < 0.001). Patients with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio of ≥200 at first awake prone positioning, longer duration between first awake prone positioning and admission, more awake prone positioning days, and better awake prone positioning completion were significantly protected from 28-day adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating awake prone positioning with a SpO2:FiO2 ratio exceeding 200, increasing the number of awake prone positioning days, prolonging the time between first awake prone positioning and admission, and achieving better completion of awake prone positioning were found to be significantly associated with reduced adverse respiratory outcomes and mortality.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05795751; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

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.

[Efficacy of bronchoalveolar lavage combined with prone positioning in children with Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia and atelectasis: a prospective randomized controlled study]

OBJECTIVES

To study the efficacy of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) combined with prone positioning in children with Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) and atelectasis and its effect on pulmonary function.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on 94 children with MPP and atelectasis who were hospitalized in Ordos Central Hospital of Inner Mongolia from November 2020 to May 2023. The children were randomly divided into a treatment group and a control group, with 47 children in each group. The children in the treatment group were given conventional treatment, BAL, and prone positioning, and those in the control group were given conventional treatment and BAL. The two groups were compared in terms of fever, pulmonary signs, length of hospital stay, lung recruitment, and improvement in pulmonary function.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the treatment group had significantly shorter time to improvement in pulmonary signs and length of hospital stay and a significantly higher rate of lung recruitment on day 7 of hospitalization, on the day of discharge, and at 1 week after discharge (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the treatment group had significantly higher levels of forced vital capacity (FVC) as a percentage of the predicted value, forced expiratory volume (FEV) in 1 second as a percentage of the predicted value, ratio of FEV in 1 second to FVC, forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC as a percentage of the predicted value, forced expiratory flow at 75% of FVC as a percentage of the predicted value, and maximal mid-expiratory flow as a percentage of the predicted value on the day of discharge and at 1 week after discharge (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the time for body temperature to return to normal between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of children with MPP and atelectasis, BAL combined with prone positioning can help to shorten the time to improvement in pulmonary signs and the length of hospital stay and promote lung recruitment and improvement in pulmonary function.

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.

Importance of timing and training to implement awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19: a single-center prospective observational study

Background

Awake prone positioning (APP) is broadly implemented in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 related disease [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)] admitted to hospital with severe respiratory distress syndrome. This prospective observational study aimed to explore the factors influencing the implementation of APP in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Methods

Patients with COVID-19, all hospitalized with positive X-ray findings and oxygen supplementation requirement, in the Respiratory Step-Down Unit of the Peking University Third Hospital between January 6th, 2023, and January 20th, 2023, were included in this study. Data regarding basic information, activities of daily living (ADLs) scores, oxygen therapy, vital signs, and duration of APP were collected to investigate the factors influencing prone positioning.

Results

Among the 134 patients included, 55.2% showed an improvement in oxygen saturation 1 hour after APP. Logistic regression revealed that the pre-APP heart rate (HR) [odds ratio (OR) =1.032; P=0.046] and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (OR =0.720; P<0.001) were the associated factors of the improvement in SpO2 after treatment. Multiple linear regression revealed that the ADL scores and pre-APP respiratory rate (RR) were the associated factors of the duration of prone positioning (P<0.01). The APP technical steering group effectively improved duration of APP.

Conclusions

Patients with low SpO2 and increased HR before treatment showed greater improvement in oxygen saturation. Patients with lower tolerance to ADL but lower RRs were those to demonstrate a longer duration of prone positioning. This is pointing towards establishing the most favorable time window for APP during the course of COVID-19: after the ADLs have already decreased, but before significant tachypnea has appeared.

Facing the Challenges in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: From Standard Treatments to the Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells as a New Therapeutic Strategy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which counts more than 650 million cases and more than 6.6 million of deaths worldwide, affects the respiratory system with typical symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and fatigue. Other nonpulmonary manifestations are related with abnormal inflammatory response, the "cytokine storm", that could lead to a multiorgan disease and to death. Evolution of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 provided multiple options to prevent the infection, but the treatment of the severe forms remains difficult to manage. The cytokine storm is usually counteracted with standard medical care and anti-inflammatory drugs, but researchers moved forward their studies on new strategies based on cell therapy approaches. The perinatal tissues, such as placental membranes, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord derivatives, are enriched in mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) that exert a well-known anti-inflammatory role, immune response modulation, and tissue repair. In this review, we focused on umbilical-cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) used in in vitro and in vivo studies in order to evaluate the weakening of the severe symptoms, and on recent clinical trials from different databases, supporting the favorable potential of UC-MSCs as therapeutic strategy.

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.

Hemodynamic Effects of Awake Prone Positioning With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure

INTRODUCTION

Awake prone positioning (PP) reduces need for intubation for patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure. We investigated the hemodynamic effects of awake PP in non-ventilated subjects with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study. Adult hypoxemic subjects with COVID-19 not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation receiving at least one PP session were included. Hemodynamic assessment was done with transthoracic echocardiography before, during, and after a PP session.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects were included. We observed a significant and reversible increase in cardiac index (CI) during PP compared to supine position (SP): 3.0 ± 0.8 L/min/m2 in PP, 2.5 ± 0.6 L/min/m2 before PP (SP1), and 2.6 ± 0.5 L/min/m2 after PP (SP2, P < .001). A significant improvement in right ventricular (RV) systolic function was also evidenced during PP: The RV fractional area change was 36 ± 10% in SP1, 46 ± 10% during PP, and 35 ± 8% in SP2 (P < .001). There was no significant difference in PaO2 /FIO2 and breathing frequency.

CONCLUSION

CI and RV systolic function are improved by awake PP in non-ventilated subjects with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

Highlights from the Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation 2022 Conference

The Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly of the European Respiratory Society gathered in Berlin to organise the second Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation Conference in June 2022. The conference covered several key points of acute and chronic respiratory failure in adults. During the 3-day conference, ventilatory strategies, patient selection, diagnostic approaches, treatment and health-related quality of life topics were addressed by a panel of international experts. Lectures delivered during the event have been summarised by Early Career Members of the Assembly and take-home messages highlighted.

Short-Term Outcomes of the First-Session Prone Position in Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Chart Review

Introduction Prone positioning during ventilation is recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy of first-session prone positioning in improving short-term outcomes remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of the rate of change in partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F) ratio before and after initial prone positioning on activities of daily living (ADL) and outcomes at discharge. Methods In this retrospective chart review, 22 patients with severe COVID-19 who required ventilator management between April and September 2021 were analyzed. Patients with an improvement in the P/F ratio (after initial prone positioning, compared to that before the session) by > 16mHg and < 16mmHg were defined as responders and non-responders, respectively. Results Compared with non-responders, responders had a significantly shorter ventilator duration, a higher Barthel Index at discharge, and a higher proportion of discharged patients. There was a significant between-group difference in chronic respiratory comorbidities, with one case (7.7%) among responders and six cases (66.7%) among non-responders. Conclusions This study is the first of its kind to investigate short-term outcomes in patients with COVID-19 requiring ventilator management after initial prone positioning. After initial prone positioning, responders had higher P/F ratios as well as improved ADLs and outcomes at discharge.

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.

Effect of Prone Position on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Patients with Covid-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Prone positioning (PP) is a well-known respiratory support approach. Limited data are available for the use of PP in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Aim

This study aims to investigate the effect of PP on the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

In This clinical trial, the participants in the PP group (n=41) were asked to lie comfortably in a prone position for 90 minutes. In the supine position (SP) group (n=41), the participants were asked to lie comfortably in a supine position for 90 minutes. Clinical data such as oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, the severity of dyspnea, mean arterial pressure, and pulse rate were assessed at 0 (immediately before), 30, 60, 90 minutes after the start of the intervention and 30 min after resuming the supine position. The participants in the PP group were then asked to intermittently stay in a prone position for a total of eight hours per 24 hours of hospitalization. The participants in the control group were asked to remain in their usual positions during the hospital stay. Finally, the length of hospital stay, intubation rate, and survival assessed.

Findings

Prone positioning was associated with significant improvement in oxygen saturation (P = 0.001), respiratory rate (P=0.004), the severity of dyspnea (P=0.014), and mean arterial pressure (P=0.027). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of pulse rate (P=0.890), hospital stay (P=0.994), intubation rate (P=0.324), and survival (P=0.091).

Discussion

Our results demonstrated that prone positioning showed marked improvement in some short-term clinical outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Conclusion

Prone positioning can be considered an inexpensive, accessible, and simple measure in awake non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

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.

The Significance of Implementing Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure under Cluster Nursing in Improving the Survival Possibility of Patients with Severe Pulmonary Infection Complicated by Respiratory Failure

Objective. To explore the significance of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) under cluster nursing in improving the survival probability of patients with severe pulmonary infection (SPI) complicated by respiratory failure (RF). Methods. This research included 153 SPI patients complicated by RF ( $\text{SPI}+\text{RF}$ ) admitted between January 2020 and March 2022, including 55 cases in group A who were treated with BIPAP under cluster care during hospitalization, 47 cases in group B receiving invasive continuous mechanical ventilation during hospitalization, and 51 cases in group C treated with BIPAP under routine care during hospitalization. The three cohorts were compared regarding pre- and posttreatment serum inflammatory factors (IFs), blood gas (BG) parameters, heart rate (HR), and respiratory rate (RR). Besides, the cumulative time of ventilator use, successful ventilator weaning rate, mortality, and incidence of adverse events were counted. Finally, patients were scored for their psychological state using the Hamilton Anxiety/Depression Scale (HAMA/HAMD). Results. The posttreatment TNF-α, IL-6, PCT, WBC, and PaCO2 reduced statistically in all the three groups, with the lowest levels found in group A and the highest in group B ( $P<0.05$ ); while PaO2 and SpO2 increased, with the highest values found in group A and the lowest in group B ( $P<0.05$ ). Among the three groups, group A had the shortest duration of ventilator use, the highest successful weaning rate, and the lowest incidence of adverse events ( $P<0.05$ ). Besides, HAMA and HAMD scores were the lowest in group A among the three groups, while those in group B were higher compared with group C ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. The implementation of BIPAP under cluster nursing can effectively reduce inflammatory responses of $\text{SPI}+\text{RF}$ patients, improve their vital signs, and enhance their psychological state, which has extremely high clinical application value.

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.

Extent and Distribution of Parenchymal Abnormalities in Baseline CT-Scans Do Not Predict Awake Prone Positioning Response in COVID-19 Related ARDS

Prone positioning is frequently used for non-intubated hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, although conclusive evidence is still lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether baseline CT-scans could predict the improvement in oxygenation in COVID-19 related Acute respira-tory syndrome (ARDS) patients when pronated. Methods: A retrospective study of COVID-19 patients who underwent non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and prone positioning was conducted. Results: Forty-five patients were included. On average, 50% of the overall lung volume was affected by the disease, as observed in the CT-scans, with ground glass opacities (GGOs) and consolidations accounting for 44% and 4%, respectively. The abnormalities were mainly posterior, as demonstrated by posterior/anterior distribution ratios of 1.5 and 4.4 for GGO and consolidation, respectively. The median PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during NIV in a supine position (SP1) was 140 [IQR 108–169], which improved by 67% (+98) during prone positioning, on average. Once supine positioning was resumed (SP2), the improvement in oxygenation was maintained in 28 patients (62% of the overall population, categorized as “responders”). We found no significant differences between responders and non-responders in terms of the extent (p = 0.92) and the distribution of parenchymal abnormalities seen in the baseline CT (p = 0.526). Conclusion: Despite the lack of a priori estimation of the sample size, considering the absence of any trends in the differences and correlations, we can reasonably conclude that the baseline chest CT-scan does not predict a gas-exchange response in awake prone-positioned patients with COVID-19 related ARDS. Physicians dealing with this category of patients should not rely on the imaging at presentation when evaluating whether to pronate patients.

Nichtinvasive respiratorische Unterstützung und invasive Beatmung bei COVID‑19

Die Kontroverse um das Thema Beatmung bei vorliegender „coronavirus disease 2019“ (COVID-19) hält an. Zu Beginn der Pandemie wurde postuliert, dass die hohe Letalität auf den Intensivstationen möglicherweise auf eine zu frühe Intubation zurückzuführen sei. Im Verlauf der Pandemie änderten sich die Empfehlungen der Fachgesellschaften, und die Häufigkeit der Anwendung von nichtinvasiver respiratorischer Unterstützung (NIRS) nahm zu. Weiterhin fehlen große Studien zur optimalen Beatmung von COVID-19-Patienten. Der vorliegende Übersichtsbeitrag fasst die pathophysiologischen Grundlagen, den aktuellen Stand der Wissenschaft und die Auswirkungen der unterschiedlichen Behandlungsmodalitäten auf das Outcome zusammen.

Awake prone positioning and oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19: the APRONOX study

BACKGROUND

The awake prone positioning strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is a safe, simple and cost-effective technique used to improve hypoxaemia. We aimed to evaluate intubation and mortality risk in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who underwent awake prone positioning during hospitalisation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicentre observational study conducted between 1 May 2020 and 12 June 2020 in 27 hospitals in Mexico and Ecuador, nonintubated patients with COVID-19 managed with awake prone or awake supine positioning were included to evaluate intubation and mortality risk through logistic regression models; multivariable and centre adjustment, propensity score analyses, and E-values were calculated to limit confounding.

RESULTS

827 nonintubated patients with COVID-19 in the awake prone (n=505) and awake supine (n=322) groups were included for analysis. Fewer patients in the awake prone group required endotracheal intubation (23.6% versus 40.4%) or died (19.8% versus 37.3%). Awake prone positioning was a protective factor for intubation even after multivariable adjustment (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.52; p<0.0001, E=2.12), which prevailed after propensity score analysis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62; p<0.0001, E=1.86) and mortality (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.55; p<0.0001, E=2.03). The main variables associated with intubation among awake prone patients were increasing age, lower baseline peripheral arterial oxygen saturation/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio (P aO2 /F IO2 ) and management with a nonrebreather mask.

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone positioning in hospitalised nonintubated patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of intubation and mortality.

Awake prone position reduces work of breathing in patients with COVID-19 ARDS supported by CPAP

Background

The use of awake prone position concomitant to non-invasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19 has shown to improve gas exchange, whereas its effect on the work of breathing remain unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of awake prone position during helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation on inspiratory effort, gas exchange and comfort of breathing.

Methods

Forty consecutive patients presenting with ARDS due to COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled. Gas exchange, esophageal pressure swing (ΔPes), dynamic transpulmonary pressure (dTPP), modified pressure time product (mPTP), work of breathing (WOB) and comfort of breathing, were recorded on supine position and after 3 h on prone position.

Results

The median applied PEEP with helmet CPAP was 10 [8–10] cmH₂O. The PaO₂/FiO₂ was higher in prone compared to supine position (Supine: 166 [136–224] mmHg, Prone: 314 [232–398] mmHg, p < 0.001). Respiratory rate and minute ventilation decreased from supine to prone position from 20 [17–24] to 17 [15–19] b/min (p < 0.001) and from 8.6 [7.3–10.6] to 7.7 [6.6–8.6] L/min (p < 0.001), respectively. Prone position did not reduce ΔPes (Supine: − 7 [− 9 to − 5] cmH₂O, Prone: − 6 [− 9 to − 5] cmH₂O, p = 0.31) and dTPP (Supine: 17 [14–19] cmH₂O, Prone: 16 [14–18] cmH₂O, p = 0.34). Conversely, mPTP and WOB decreased from 152 [104–197] to 118 [90–150] cmH₂O/min (p < 0.001) and from 146 [120–185] to 114 [95–151] cmH₂O L/min (p < 0.001), respectively. Twenty-six (65%) patients experienced a reduction in WOB of more than 10%. The overall sensation of dyspnea was lower in prone position (p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Awake prone position with helmet CPAP enables a reduction in the work of breathing and an improvement in oxygenation in COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-021-00967-6.

Therapeutic Options for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Where Are We Now?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rapidly evolving treatment paradigms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduce challenges for clinicians to keep up with the pace of published literature and to critically appraise the voluminous data produced. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from key studies examining the place of therapy of recommended drugs and management strategies for COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

The global magnitude and duration of the pandemic have resulted in a flurry of interventional treatment trials evaluating both novel and repurposed drugs targeting various aspects of the viral life cycle. Additionally, clinical observations have documented various stages or phases of COVID-19 and underscored the importance of timing for the efficacy of studied therapies. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many observational, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies have been conducted to guide management of COVID-19 using drug therapies and other management strategies. Large, randomized, or adaptive platform trials have proven the most informative to guide recommended treatments to-date. Antimicrobial stewardship programs can play a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate use of COVID-19 therapies based on evolving clinical data and limiting unnecessary antibiotics given low rates of co-infection.

SUMMARY

Given the rapidly evolving medical literature and treatment paradigms, it is recommended to reference continuously updated, curated guidelines from national and international sources. While the drugs and management strategies mentioned in this review represent the current state of recommendations, many therapies are still under investigation to further define optimal COVID-19 treatment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11908-021-00769-8.

Adverse Events of Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With ARDS

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning is a therapy utilized globally to improve gas exchange, minimize ventilator-induced lung injury, and reduce mortality in ARDS, particularly during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Whereas the respiratory benefits of prone positioning in ARDS have been accepted, the concurrent complications could be undervalued. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the adverse events (AEs) related to prone positioning in ARDS and, secondarily, to collect strategies and recommendations to mitigate these AEs.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we searched recommendation documents and original studies published between June 2013 and November 2020 from 6 relevant electronic databases and the websites of intensive care societies.

RESULTS

We selected 41 documents from 121 eligible documents, comprising 13 recommendation documents and 28 original studies (involving 1,578 subjects and 994 prone maneuvers). We identified > 40 individual AEs, and the highest-pooled occurrence rates were those of severe desaturation (37.9%), barotrauma (30.5%), pressure sores (29.7%), ventilation-associated pneumonia (28.2%), facial edema (16.7%), arrhythmia (15.4%), hypotension (10.2%), and peripheral nerve injuries (8.1%). The reported mitigation strategies during prone positioning included alternate face rotation (18 [43.9%]), repositioning every 2 h (17 [41.5%]), and the use of pillows under the chest and pelvis (14 [34.1%]). The reported mitigation strategies for performing the prone maneuver comprised one person being at the headboard (23 [56.1%]), the use of a pre-maneuver safety checklist (18 [43.9%]), vital sign monitoring (15 [36.6%]), and ensuring appropriate ventilator settings (12 [29.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified > 40 AEs reported in prone positioning ARDS studies, including additional AEs not yet reported by previous systematic reviews. The pooled AE proportions collected in this review could guide research and clinical practice decisions, and the strategies to mitigate AEs could promote future consensus-based recommendations.

Prone positioning for non-intubated hypoxemic patients with COVID-19: cheap, easy, and makes sense, but does it work?

Since the 1970s, prone positioning has been proposed as an inexpensive and physiologically justified management strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The physiological rationale for prone positioning in ARDS has been well described [1,2]. Placing a person in the prone position reduces lung compression, which facilitates better ventilation/perfusion matching and leads to improved oxygenation. However, determining whether patients receive clinically meaningful benefit from prone positioning in the form of reduced mortality or time supported on mechanical ventilation has been challenging. Early trials that used prone positioning as a “rescue” therapy or applied relatively small “doses” of prone positioning (i.e. limited duration of time in prone position) did not demonstrate improvements in mortality or ventilator-free days (VFDs) [3–5].

This editorial evaluates a large observational study that identified strong associations between awake prone positioning and decreased mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19https://bit.ly/3m3NeAx

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory. Therefore, the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: HCQ; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest.

FINDINGS

Fourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four trials (1942 patients: HCQ = 1271; placebo = 671) used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two (1650 patients: HCQ = 821; placebo = 829) as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three (1018 patients: HCQ = 497; placebo = 521) as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five (1138 patients: HCQ = 572; placebo = 566) as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There was no significant decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ.

INTERPRETATION

Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

There was no funding source.

Coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure: what is the best supportive care for patients who require ICU admission?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Currently, there is no cure for SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet hospital mortality rates for COVID-19 have improved over the course of the pandemic and may be due in part to improved supportive care in the ICU. This review highlights the evidence for and against various ICU supportive therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early in the pandemic, there was great interest in novel ICU supportive care, both for the benefit of the patient, and the safety of clinicians. With a few exceptions (e.g. prone ventilation of nonintubated patients), clinicians abandoned most of these approaches (e.g. early intubation, avoidance of high flow or noninvasive ventilation). Standard critical care measures, especially for the treatment of severe viral respiratory infection including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were applied to patients with COVID-19 with apparent success.

SUMMARY

In general, the COVID-19 pandemic reaffirmed the benefits of standard supportive care for respiratory failure and in particular, recent advances in ARDS treatment. Prone ventilation of nonintubated patients, an approach that was adopted early in the pandemic, is associated with improvement in oxygenation, but its impact on clinical outcome remains unclear. Otherwise, prone mechanical ventilation and avoidance of excessive tidal volumes, conservative fluid management, antibiotic stewardship and early evaluation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) -- basic tenants of severe respiratory infections and ARDS care -- remain at the core of management of patients with severe COVID-19.

Barriers to nutrition therapy in the critically ill patient with COVID-19

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has created challenges for intensivists, as high ventilatory demands and prolonged hypermetabolism make it difficult to sustain nutrition status. The purpose of this survey was to determine current practices in nutrition therapy and identify barriers to its delivery.

Methods

A survey about delivering nutrition therapy to critically ill patients with COVID‐19 was sent to clinicians at academic and community hospitals from September to December 2020.

Results

Of 440 who viewed the survey, 199 (45%) completed the questionnaire. Respondents were composed of 30%, physicians and 70% registered dietitians, with 51% representing community programs, 43% academic institutions, and 6% Veterans Affairs centers. Half (49%) had protocols for managing critically ill patients with COVID‐19, and 21% had a protocol for nutrition therapy. Although most respondents (83%) attempted to feed by the intragastric route, only 9% indicated that energy/protein needs were met. The biggest barriers to delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) involved the patients unpredictable clinical course and fear of aspiration given the lack of respiratory reserve. Intensivists were reluctant to add supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) because of perceived lack of benefit.

Conclusion

The survey results would suggest that strategies for nutrition therapy based on the intragastric infusion of EN are unsuccessful in meeting the energy/protein needs of critically ill patients with COVID‐19. It is likely these barriers exist in providing nutrition to non‐Covid‐19 critically ill patients. Intensivists need protocols that optimally deliver intragastric EN, consider early postpyloric infusion, and address adding supplemental PN in a deteriorating nutrition status.