Laveena Munshi1, Lorenzo Del Sorbo1, Neill K J Adhikari2, Carol L Hodgson3, Hannah Wunsch4, Maureen O Meade5, Elizabeth Uleryk6, Jordi Mancebo7, Antonio Pesenti8, V Marco Ranieri9, Eddy Fan1. 1. 1 Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. 2 Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. 3 Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. 4 Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. 5 McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. 6 Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. 7 University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 8. 8 Universita degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; and. 9. 9 Policlinico Umberto I, Università "La Sapienza" Roma, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The application of prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has evolved, with recent trials focusing on patients with more severe ARDS, and applying prone ventilation for more prolonged periods. OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates the effect of prone positioning on 28-day mortality (primary outcome) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the supine position for adults with ARDS. METHODS: We updated the literature search from a systematic review published in 2010, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to August 2016). We included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prone to supine positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of duration of prone ventilation, concurrent lung-protective ventilation and ARDS severity. Secondary outcomes included PaO2/FiO2 ratio on Day 4 and an evaluation of adverse events. Meta-analyses used random effects models. Methodologic quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias instrument, and methodologic quality of the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. RESULTS: Eight RCTs fulfilled entry criteria, and included 2,129 patients (1,093 [51%] proned). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.04), but subgroup analyses found lower mortality with 12 hours or greater duration prone (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99) and for patients with moderate to severe ARDS (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). PaO2/FiO2 ratio on Day 4 for all patients was significantly higher in the prone positioning group (mean difference, 23.5; 95% CI, 12.4-34.5). Prone positioning was associated with higher rates of endotracheal tube obstruction and pressure sores. Risk of bias was low across the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning is likely to reduce mortality among patients with severe ARDS when applied for at least 12 hours daily.
RATIONALE: The application of prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has evolved, with recent trials focusing on patients with more severe ARDS, and applying prone ventilation for more prolonged periods. OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates the effect of prone positioning on 28-day mortality (primary outcome) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the supine position for adults with ARDS. METHODS: We updated the literature search from a systematic review published in 2010, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to August 2016). We included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prone to supine positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of duration of prone ventilation, concurrent lung-protective ventilation and ARDS severity. Secondary outcomes included PaO2/FiO2 ratio on Day 4 and an evaluation of adverse events. Meta-analyses used random effects models. Methodologic quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias instrument, and methodologic quality of the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. RESULTS: Eight RCTs fulfilled entry criteria, and included 2,129 patients (1,093 [51%] proned). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.04), but subgroup analyses found lower mortality with 12 hours or greater duration prone (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99) and for patients with moderate to severe ARDS (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). PaO2/FiO2 ratio on Day 4 for all patients was significantly higher in the prone positioning group (mean difference, 23.5; 95% CI, 12.4-34.5). Prone positioning was associated with higher rates of endotracheal tube obstruction and pressure sores. Risk of bias was low across the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning is likely to reduce mortality among patients with severe ARDS when applied for at least 12 hours daily.
Authors: Esteban Ortiz-Prado; Katherine Simbaña-Rivera; Lenin Gómez-Barreno; Mario Rubio-Neira; Linda P Guaman; Nikolaos C Kyriakidis; Claire Muslin; Ana María Gómez Jaramillo; Carlos Barba-Ostria; Doménica Cevallos-Robalino; Hugo Sanches-SanMiguel; Luis Unigarro; Rasa Zalakeviciute; Naomi Gadian; Andrés López-Cortés Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 2.803