Literature DB >> 34348787

Letter to the Editor in response to "Find the real responders and improve the outcome of awake prone positioning".

Jacob Rosén1, Erik von Oelreich2,3, Diddi Fors4, Malin Jonsson Fagerlund2,3, Knut Taxbro5, Peter Frykholm4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34348787      PMCID: PMC8334335          DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03707-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


× No keyword cloud information.

Dear Editor,

We read with interest the letter by Wang and He [1] regarding our trial of awake prone positioning (APP) in severe COVID-19 [2] and would like to discuss the questions they raised. First, Wang and He accurately point out that our study compares 3.4 h/day APP in the control group with 9.0 h/day APP in the intervention group. Since APP was frequently used even early in the pandemic, we found it unethical to prohibit APP in the control group when planning the trial. Furthermore, even though we would have liked to have seen > 16 h APP per day in the intervention group, only a minority of patients were able to reach this goal. Interestingly, the results were consistent in a subgroup of patients who received a median of 0.46 h/day of APP compared with patients who received 11.9 h/day of APP. Second, we think there is still not enough evidence to state that APP decreases the risk of intubation. In the study by Ferrando et al. [3], duration of APP in the prone group was > 16 h/day which was much longer, not shorter as suggested by Wang and He, than in our study. In the study by Padrão et al. [4], intubation rates were higher in the group exposed to APP. The low overall intubation rate in our study could perhaps be explained by liberal use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) [5] as well as a high level of care at the participating centers. Third, Wang and He suggest that a majority of patients in our study were supported by NIV at randomization. On the contrary, 74% of patients in the control group and 86% of patients in the APP group had high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) at that point. However, a majority of our patients did receive NIV treatment during the trial for which initiation criteria were not protocolized. We could speculate that the possibility to switch between NIV and HFNO could be an advantage for some patients which may have influenced the results. There are several unanswered questions regarding APP: when to start, the minimum effective dose per day, how to increase tolerance, if APP is more effective with HFNO or NIV alone or in combination. Large international trials as well as physiological studies are warranted to address these queries and ultimately to establish an evidence-based protocol for APP.
  5 in total

1.  Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Exploratory Findings in a Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Eduardo M H Padrão; Fernando S Valente; Bruno A M P Besen; Hassan Rahhal; Paula S Mesquita; Julio C G de Alencar; Millena G P da Costa; Annelise P B Wanderley; Debora L Emerenciano; Felipe M Bortoleto; Julio C L Fortes; Bruno Marques; Stefany F B de Souza; Júlio F M Marchini; Rodrigo A B Neto; Heraldo P de Souza
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 3.451

2.  Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Domenico Luca Grieco; Luca S Menga; Melania Cesarano; Tommaso Rosà; Savino Spadaro; Maria Maddalena Bitondo; Jonathan Montomoli; Giulia Falò; Tommaso Tonetti; Salvatore L Cutuli; Gabriele Pintaudi; Eloisa S Tanzarella; Edoardo Piervincenzi; Filippo Bongiovanni; Antonio M Dell'Anna; Luca Delle Cese; Cecilia Berardi; Simone Carelli; Maria Grazia Bocci; Luca Montini; Giuseppe Bello; Daniele Natalini; Gennaro De Pascale; Matteo Velardo; Carlo Alberto Volta; V Marco Ranieri; Giorgio Conti; Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore; Massimo Antonelli
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Find the real responders and improve the outcome of awake prone positioning.

Authors:  Heyan Wang; Hangyong He
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 9.097

4.  Awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the PROFLO multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Jacob Rosén; Erik von Oelreich; Diddi Fors; Malin Jonsson Fagerlund; Knut Taxbro; Paul Skorup; Ludvig Eby; Francesca Campoccia Jalde; Niclas Johansson; Gustav Bergström; Peter Frykholm
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Awake prone positioning does not reduce the risk of intubation in COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy: a multicenter, adjusted cohort study.

Authors:  Carlos Ferrando; Ricard Mellado-Artigas; Alfredo Gea; Egoitz Arruti; César Aldecoa; Ramón Adalia; Fernando Ramasco; Pablo Monedero; Emilio Maseda; Gonzalo Tamayo; María L Hernández-Sanz; Jordi Mercadal; Ascensión Martín-Grande; Robert M Kacmarek; Jesús Villar; Fernando Suárez-Sipmann
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 9.097

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.