CONTEXT: In uncontrolled clinical studies, prone positioning appeared to be safe and to improve oxygenation in pediatric patients with acute lung injury. However, the effect of prone positioning on clinical outcomes in children is not known. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that at the end of 28 days infants and children with acute lung injury treated with prone positioning would have more ventilator-free days than those treated with supine positioning. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from August 28, 2001, to April 23, 2004, of 102 pediatric patients from 7 US pediatric intensive care units aged 2 weeks to 18 years who were treated with supine vs prone positioning. Randomization was concealed and group assignment was not blinded. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to either supine or prone positioning within 48 hours of meeting acute lung injury criteria, with those patients in the prone group being positioned within 4 hours of randomization and remaining prone for 20 hours each day during the acute phase of their illness for a maximum of 7 days, after which they were positioned supine. Both groups were treated using lung protective ventilator and sedation protocols, extubation readiness testing, and hemodynamic, nutrition, and skin care guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ventilator-free days to day 28. RESULTS: The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis on the basis of the prespecified futility stopping rule. There were no differences in the number of ventilator-free days between the 2 groups (mean [SD], 15.8 [8.5] supine vs 15.6 [8.6] prone; mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -3.6 to 3.2; P = .91). After controlling for age, Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score, direct vs indirect acute lung injury, and mode of mechanical ventilation at enrollment, the adjusted difference in ventilator-free days was 0.3 days (95% CI, -3.0 to 3.5; P = .87). There were no differences in the secondary end points, including proportion alive and ventilator-free on day 28 (P = .45), mortality from all causes (P>.99), the time to recovery of lung injury (P = .78), organ-failure-free days (P = .88), and cognitive impairment (P = .16) or overall functional health (P = .12) at hospital discharge or on day 28. CONCLUSION:Prone positioning does not significantly reduce ventilator-free days or improve other clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute lung injury.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: In uncontrolled clinical studies, prone positioning appeared to be safe and to improve oxygenation in pediatric patients with acute lung injury. However, the effect of prone positioning on clinical outcomes in children is not known. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that at the end of 28 days infants and children with acute lung injury treated with prone positioning would have more ventilator-free days than those treated with supine positioning. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from August 28, 2001, to April 23, 2004, of 102 pediatric patients from 7 US pediatric intensive care units aged 2 weeks to 18 years who were treated with supine vs prone positioning. Randomization was concealed and group assignment was not blinded. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to either supine or prone positioning within 48 hours of meeting acute lung injury criteria, with those patients in the prone group being positioned within 4 hours of randomization and remaining prone for 20 hours each day during the acute phase of their illness for a maximum of 7 days, after which they were positioned supine. Both groups were treated using lung protective ventilator and sedation protocols, extubation readiness testing, and hemodynamic, nutrition, and skin care guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ventilator-free days to day 28. RESULTS: The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis on the basis of the prespecified futility stopping rule. There were no differences in the number of ventilator-free days between the 2 groups (mean [SD], 15.8 [8.5] supine vs 15.6 [8.6] prone; mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -3.6 to 3.2; P = .91). After controlling for age, Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score, direct vs indirect acute lung injury, and mode of mechanical ventilation at enrollment, the adjusted difference in ventilator-free days was 0.3 days (95% CI, -3.0 to 3.5; P = .87). There were no differences in the secondary end points, including proportion alive and ventilator-free on day 28 (P = .45), mortality from all causes (P>.99), the time to recovery of lung injury (P = .78), organ-failure-free days (P = .88), and cognitive impairment (P = .16) or overall functional health (P = .12) at hospital discharge or on day 28. CONCLUSION: Prone positioning does not significantly reduce ventilator-free days or improve other clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with acute lung injury.
Authors: L Gattinoni; G Tognoni; A Pesenti; P Taccone; D Mascheroni; V Labarta; R Malacrida; P Di Giulio; R Fumagalli; P Pelosi; L Brazzi; R Latini Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adrienne G Randolph; David Wypij; Shekhar T Venkataraman; James H Hanson; Rainer G Gedeit; Kathleen L Meert; Peter M Luckett; Peter Forbes; Michelle Lilley; John Thompson; Ira M Cheifetz; Patricia Hibberd; Randall Wetzel; Peter N Cox; John H Arnold Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Juan Casado-Flores; Amelia Martínez de Azagra; Maria Jesús Ruiz-López; Miguel Ruiz; Ana Serrano Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-10-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Claude Guerin; Sandrine Gaillard; Stephane Lemasson; Louis Ayzac; Raphaele Girard; Pascal Beuret; Bruno Palmier; Quoc Viet Le; Michel Sirodot; Sylvaine Rosselli; Vincent Cadiergue; Jean-Marie Sainty; Philippe Barbe; Emmanuel Combourieu; Daniel Debatty; Jean Rouffineau; Eric Ezingeard; Olivier Millet; Dominique Guelon; Luc Rodriguez; Olivier Martin; Anne Renault; Jean-Paul Sibille; Michel Kaidomar Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pablo Cruces; Franco Díaz; Alonso Puga; Benjamín Erranz; Alejandro Donoso; Cristóbal Carvajal; Jan Wilhelm; Gabriela M Repetto Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Lisa A Asaro; Heidi R Flori; Geoffrey L Allen; David Wypij; Martha A Q Curley Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Neal J Thomas; Michele L Shaffer; Douglas F Willson; Mei-Chiung Shih; Martha A Q Curley Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Roger G Spragg; Gordon R Bernard; William Checkley; J Randall Curtis; Ognjen Gajic; Gordon Guyatt; Jesse Hall; Elliott Israel; Manu Jain; Dale M Needham; Adrienne G Randolph; Gordon D Rubenfeld; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Lorraine B Ware; Duncan Young; Andrea L Harabin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jeremy R Beitler; Shahzad Shaefi; Sydney B Montesi; Amy Devlin; Stephen H Loring; Daniel Talmor; Atul Malhotra Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bhupinder Reel; Peter E Oishi; Jong-Hau Hsu; Ginny Gildengorin; Michael A Matthay; Jeffrey R Fineman; Heidi Flori Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2009-11
Authors: Anil Sapru; Martha A Q Curley; Sandra Brady; Michael A Matthay; Heidi Flori Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-10-24 Impact factor: 17.440