Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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

Background

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

Research question

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

Study design

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

Results

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

Interpretation

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

Trial registration

NCT04853979 (clinicaltrials.gov).

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[COVID-19 in the intensive care unit]

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

Conscious prone positioning in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

METHODS

We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.

RESULTS

We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.

CONCLUSION

The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

Awake proning in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure was applied during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to improve oxygenation while avoiding tracheal intubation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic was published.

METHODS

The Clinical practice committee (CPC) of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) assessed the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline" for possible endorsement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool was used.

RESULTS

Four out of six SSAI CPC members completed the appraisal. The individual domain totals were: Scope and Purpose 90%; Stakeholder Involvement 89%; Rigour of Development 74%; Clarity of Presentation 85%; Applicability 75%; Editorial Independence 98%; Overall Assessment 79%.

CONCLUSION

The SSAI CPC endorses the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline". This guideline serves as a useful decision aid for clinicians caring for critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and can be used to provide guidance on use of prone positioning in this group of patients.

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.

A Comprehensive Review of Prone Ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit: Challenges and Solutions

This comprehensive review explores the intricate landscape of prone ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU), spanning physiological rationale, challenges in implementation, psychosocial impacts, technological innovations, economic considerations, barriers to adoption, and implications for clinical practice. The physiological benefits of prone positioning, including improved oxygenation and lung compliance, are discussed alongside the challenges of patient selection and technical complexities. The psychosocial impact on patients and caregivers, as well as the economic implications for healthcare systems, adds a crucial dimension to the analysis. The review also delves into innovative technologies, such as advanced monitoring and automation, shaping the landscape of prone ventilation. Moreover, it addresses the barriers to widespread adoption and outlines strategies to overcome resistance, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and collaborative approach. The implications for clinical practice underscore the importance of evidence-based guidelines, ongoing education, and a holistic patient-centered care approach. The conclusion highlights the call to action for further research to refine protocols and technology, ultimately optimizing the application of prone ventilation in critical care settings.

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.

Ventilatory Management of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to SARS-CoV-2

The emergence of the new SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019 caused a worldwide pandemic of the resultant disease, COVID-19. There was a massive surge in admissions to intensive care units (ICU), notably of patients with hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. In these patients, optimal oxygen therapy was crucial. In this article, we discuss tracheal intubation to provide mechanical ventilation in patients with hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2. We first describe the pathophysiology of respiratory anomalies leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to infection with SARS-CoV-2, and then briefly review management, focusing particularly on the ventilation strategy. Overall, the ventilatory management of ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 infection is largely the same as that applied in ARDS from other causes, and lung-protective ventilation is recommended. The difference lies in the initial clinical presentation, with profound hypoxaemia often observed concomitantly with near-normal pulmonary compliance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The prognostic value of red blood cell distribution width for pulmonary infection in elderly patients received abdominal surgery with tracheal intubation and general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) has been shown to be an important predictor of the occurrence of various inflammatory and infectious diseases. However, the predictive value of RDW for pulmonary infection in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation remains unclear.

METHODS

A total of 200 eligible elderly patients who underwent abdominal surgery with endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia in our hospital from January 2019 to January 2022 were included in this study. During hospitalization, there were 64 cases with different degrees of pulmonary infection, and 136 cases without pulmonary infection. Participants' RDW levels were analyzed on admission. Serum levels of inflammatory factors in infected patients were analyzed during hospitalization. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to evaluate clinical factors for pulmonary infection during hospitalization following-up abdominal surgery with endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia in elderly patients. Youden's J statistic was used to define the correlation.

RESULTS

RDW at admission was independently associated with the risk of pulmonary infection in elderly patients undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation for abdominal surgery ([OR 1.952, 95% confidence interval 1.604 to 2.279, p=0.006]). RDW at admission was statistically positively correlated with inflammatory factors, including procalcitonin (p<0.001), C-reactive protein (p<0.001), and tumor necrosis factor-α (p<0.001), in elderly patients with postoperative pneumonia who underwent abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

RDW at admission had predictive value for pulmonary infection in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation.

Prone versus lateral position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients with HFNO therapy: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled open-label trial

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is a leading treatment technique for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but its treatment failure rate remains high. The awake prone position (APP) has been proven to increase oxygenation and reduce the endotracheal intubation rate in patients with COVID-19-induced AHRF. However, the APP is poorly tolerated in patients, and its performance in improving prognoses is controversial. The lateral position has a similar mechanism and effect to the prone position, but it is more tolerable than the prone position. Therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lateral position is better for awake patients with AHRF.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a three-arm parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled open-label exploratory trial. A total of 583 patients from two hospitals in Chongqing, China, will be randomised to take the semi-recumbent position, lateral position, or prone position at a ratio of 1:1:1. Patients are all diagnosed with AHRF secondary to non-COVID-19 pneumonia or lung infection and receiving HFNO therapy. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days in 28 days. The secondary outcomes are the 28-day intubation rate, 28-day all-cause mortality, total position change time, the incidence of adverse events, number of hours using HFNO therapy, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and others. We will conduct subgroup analyses on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspiration oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (> 200 mmHg or ≤ 200 mmHg), time from admission to intervention implementation (< 24 h or ≥ 24 h), position changing time, and different diagnoses.

DISCUSSION

This trial will explore the prognostic effects of the APP with that of the lateral position in awake patients with non-COVID-19AHRF and compare the differences between them. To provide evidence for clinical decision-making and further research on position management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number is ChiCTR2200055822 . Registered on January 20, 2022.

[Ventilatory management of SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure]

COVID-19 pneumonia presents several particularities in its clinical presentation (cytokine storm, silent hypoxemia, thrombo-embolic risk) and may lead to a number of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes. While the optimal oxygenation strategy in cases of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is still under debate, ventilatory management of COVID-19-related ARF has confirmed the efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy and restored interest in other ventilatory approaches such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation involving a helmet, which due to patient overflow are sometimes implemented outside of critical care units. However, further studies are still needed to determine which patients should be given which oxygenation technique, and under which conditions they require invasive mechanical ventilation, given that delayed initiation potentially burdens prognosis. During invasive mechanical ventilation, ventral decubitus and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have become increasingly prevalent. While innovative therapies such as awake prone position or lung transplantation have likewise been developed, their indications, modalities and efficacy remain to be determined.

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.

Physiological effects of awake prone position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

The effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔPES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure-time product per minute (sPTPES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (VT), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (VT/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography.

RESULTS

Compared to supine position, prone position increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76-129] vs. 74 [69-93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22-26] vs. 27 [26-30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔPES (12 cmH2O [11-13] vs. 9 [8-12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTPES (131 [75-154] cmH2O s min-1 vs. 105 [81-129], p > 0.99) and ΔPL (9 [7-11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5-9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units-3 [4-11] vs. 6 [4-9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32-61] vs. 0.40 [0.37-0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414-8547] vs. 1456 [959-2420], p = 0.002) and promoted VT distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting VT size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16-0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30-0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7-57] of VT in prone vs. 31% [14-55] in supine position, p > 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Prone position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes VT distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting VT size, ΔPL, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔPES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔPES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔPES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023394113.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Pregnancy and Severe ARDS with COVID-19: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Outcomes and Treatment

Pregnancy-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is fast becoming a growing and clinically relevant subgroup of ARDS amidst global outbreaks of various viral respiratory pathogens that include H1N1-influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS), and the most recent COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe viral-induced ARDS and commonly associated with poor maternal and fetal outcomes including fetal growth-restriction, preterm birth, and spontaneous abortion. Physiologic changes of pregnancy further compounded by mechanical and immunologic alterations are theorized to impact the development of ARDS from viral pneumonia. The COVID-19 sub-phenotype of ARDS share overlapping molecular features of maternal pathogenicity of pregnancy with respect to immune-dysregulation and endothelial/microvascular injury (i.e., preeclampsia) that may in part explain a trend toward poor maternal and fetal outcomes seen with severe COVID-19 maternal infections. To date, current ARDS diagnostic criteria and treatment management fail to include and consider physiologic adaptations that are unique to maternal physiology of pregnancy and consideration of maternal-fetal interactions. Treatment focused on lung-protective ventilation strategies have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in adults with ARDS but may have adverse maternal-fetal interactions when applied in pregnancy-related ARDS. No specific pharmacotherapy has been identified to improve outcomes in pregnancy with ARDS. Adjunctive therapies aimed at immune-modulation and anti-viral treatment with COVID-19 infection during pregnancy have been reported but data in regard to its efficacy and safety is currently lacking.

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

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

Awake Prone Positioning for Non-Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Awake prone positioning (APP) has been widely applied in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of APP and to identify the subpopulations that may benefit the most from it.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases from inception to August 2022 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022342426). We included only RCTs comparing APP with supine positioning or standard of care with no prone positioning. Our primary outcomes were the risk of intubation and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for escalating respiratory support, length of ICU and hospital stay, ventilation-free days, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs and showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation in the overall population (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95; moderate certainty). Following the subgroup analyses, a greater benefit was observed in two patient cohorts: those receiving a higher level of respiratory support (compared with those receiving conventional oxygen therapy) and those in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (compared to patients in non-ICU settings). APP did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11; moderate certainty) and did not increase the risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, APP likely reduced the risk of requiring intubation, but failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall mortality risk. The benefits of APP are most noticeable in those requiring a higher level of respiratory support in an ICU environment.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

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

Historical background

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

Pathophysiology

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

Outcome in ARDS

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

Prone position and COVID-19

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

Graphical Abstract

Therapeutic advances in COVID-19

Over 2 years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives. Unlike the early days of the pandemic, when management decisions were based on extrapolations from in vitro data, case reports and case series, clinicians are now equipped with an armamentarium of therapies based on high-quality evidence. These treatments are spread across seven main therapeutic categories: anti-inflammatory agents, antivirals, antithrombotics, therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, anti-SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibody therapies, modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and vitamins. For each of these treatments, the patient population characteristics and clinical settings in which they were studied are important considerations. Although few direct comparisons have been performed, the evidence base and magnitude of benefit for anti-inflammatory and antiviral agents clearly outweigh those of other therapeutic approaches such as vitamins. The emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of much of the available evidence, particularly for antibody therapies. Importantly, patients with acute and chronic kidney disease were under-represented in many of the COVID-19 clinical trials, and outcomes in this population might differ from those reported in the general population. Here, we examine the clinical evidence for these therapies through a kidney medicine lens.

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 ).

Management of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnancy

Although the majority of pregnant patients who contract severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will have a mild course of illness, pregnant patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are more likely than their nonpregnant counterparts to develop a severe illness with an increased risk of poor maternal and fetal outcomes. Although the extent of research in this specific patient population remains limited, there are tenets of care with which physicians and other providers must be familiar to increase the chances of better outcomes for the two patients in their care.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022314856.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Supportive Care in Patients with Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019

Specific therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have limited efficacy in the event a patient worsens clinically and requires admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thus, providing quality supportive care is essential to the overall management of patients with critical COVID-19. Patients with respiratory failure not requiring intubation should be supported with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, or high flow oxygenation. Use of these respiratory modalities may prevent patients from subsequently requiring intubation. Basic components of supportive care for the critically ill should be applied equally to patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.

Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach

Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort.

SETTING

University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada.

PATIENTS

Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%; p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%; p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

Practice of Awake Prone Positioning in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoAcT-COVID Study

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was ‘treatment failure’, a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: diagnosis, outcomes, long-term sequelae, and management

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterised by acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with bilateral infiltrates on chest imaging, which is not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload. ARDS is defined by the Berlin criteria. In this Series paper the diagnosis, management, outcomes, and long-term sequelae of ARDS are reviewed. Potential limitations of the ARDS definition and evidence that could inform future revisions are considered. Guideline recommendations, evidence, and uncertainties in relation to ARDS management are discussed. The future of ARDS strives towards a precision medicine approach, and the framework of treatable traits in ARDS diagnosis and management is explored.

Reply to: Effect of prone positioning without mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure

We have read the letter by Yanfei Shen and co-workers, and appreciate their interest in our study of awake prone positioning (APP) in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We would like to add a few comments to their purposeful remarks.

Several questions on the efficacy of awake prone positioning for hypoxaemic respiratory failure remain unanswered. Research targeting those questions is needed. https://bit.ly/3xmbNPP