Wei Tan1, Dong-Yang Xu1, Meng-Jiao Xu1, Zan-Feng Wang1, Bing Dai2, Li-Li Li2, Hong-Wen Zhao1, Wei Wang1, Jian Kang1. 1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 2. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The application of prone positioning with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in non-intubation patients is increasing gradually, applying prone positioning for more high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and tolerance of prone positioning combined with non-invasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF or ARDS. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (prospective or retrospective cohort studies, RCTs and case series) published in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2020. We included studies that compared prone and supine positioning with non-invasive respiratory support in awake patients with AHRF or ARDS. The meta-analyses used random effects models. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 243 patients. The aggregated intubation rate and mortality rate were 33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.42, I2 = 25%], 4% (95% CI: 0.01-0.07, I2 = 0%), respectively, and the intolerance rate was 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.12, I2 = 5%). Prone positioning increased PaO2/FiO2 [mean difference (MD) = 47.89, 95% CI: 28.12-67.66; p < 0.00001, I2 = 67%] and SpO2 (MD = 4.58, 95% CI: 1.35-7.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 97%), whereas it reduced respiratory rate (MD = -5.01, 95% CI: -8.49 to -1.52, p = 0.005, I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the intubation rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 34% and 21%, respectively; and the mortality rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 6% and 0%, respectively. PaO2/FiO2 and SpO2 were significantly improved in COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Prone positioning could improve the oxygenation and reduce respiratory rate in both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients with non-intubated AHRF or ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The application of prone positioning with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in non-intubation patients is increasing gradually, applying prone positioning for more high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and tolerance of prone positioning combined with non-invasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF or ARDS. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (prospective or retrospective cohort studies, RCTs and case series) published in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2020. We included studies that compared prone and supine positioning with non-invasive respiratory support in awake patients with AHRF or ARDS. The meta-analyses used random effects models. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 243 patients. The aggregated intubation rate and mortality rate were 33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.42, I2 = 25%], 4% (95% CI: 0.01-0.07, I2 = 0%), respectively, and the intolerance rate was 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.12, I2 = 5%). Prone positioning increased PaO2/FiO2 [mean difference (MD) = 47.89, 95% CI: 28.12-67.66; p < 0.00001, I2 = 67%] and SpO2 (MD = 4.58, 95% CI: 1.35-7.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 97%), whereas it reduced respiratory rate (MD = -5.01, 95% CI: -8.49 to -1.52, p = 0.005, I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the intubation rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 34% and 21%, respectively; and the mortality rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 6% and 0%, respectively. PaO2/FiO2 and SpO2 were significantly improved in COVID-19patients and non-COVID-19patients. CONCLUSION: Prone positioning could improve the oxygenation and reduce respiratory rate in both COVID-19patients and non-COVID-19patients with non-intubated AHRF or ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.