Jimyung Park1, Hong Yeul Lee1, Jinwoo Lee1, Sang-Min Lee2. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. sangmin2@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: When compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.
BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: When compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19ARDS.
Authors: Hong Yeul Lee; Jaeyoung Cho; Nakwon Kwak; Sun Mi Choi; Jinwoo Lee; Young Sik Park; Chang-Hoon Lee; Chul-Gyu Yoo; Young Whan Kim; Sang-Min Lee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michela Botta; Anissa M Tsonas; Janesh Pillay; Leonoor S Boers; Anna Geke Algera; Lieuwe D J Bos; Dave A Dongelmans; Marcus W Hollmann; Janneke Horn; Alexander P J Vlaar; Marcus J Schultz; Ary Serpa Neto; Frederique Paulus Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Carlos Ferrando; Fernando Suarez-Sipmann; Ricard Mellado-Artigas; María Hernández; Alfredo Gea; Egoitz Arruti; César Aldecoa; Graciela Martínez-Pallí; Miguel A Martínez-González; Arthur S Slutsky; Jesús Villar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Claude Guérin; Richard K Albert; Jeremy Beitler; Luciano Gattinoni; Samir Jaber; John J Marini; Laveena Munshi; Laurent Papazian; Antonio Pesenti; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jordi Mancebo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Filip Depta; Pavol Török; Andrew G Miller; Peter Firment; Jozef Leškanič; Adam Porubän; Pavol Halaš; Stanislav Mandinec; Vladimír Filka; Henryk Zajac; Michael A Gentile; Marko Zdravkovic Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 1.573
Authors: M L A Heldeweg; A Mousa; J van Ekeren; A W E Lieveld; R S Walburgh-Schmidt; J M Smit; M E Haaksma; H J de Grooth; L M A Heunks; P R Tuinman Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 4.298
Authors: Jaber S Alqahtani; Abdulelah M Aldhahir; Shouq S Al Ghamdi; Salma AlBahrani; Ibrahim A AlDraiwiesh; Abdullah A Alqarni; Kamaluddin Latief; Reynie Purnama Raya; Tope Oyelade Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 4.614