scholarly journals Early versus late awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramandeep Kaur ◽  
David L. Vines ◽  
Sara Mirza ◽  
Ahmad Elshafei ◽  
Julie A. Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract Background Awake prone positioning (APP) is widely used in the management of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients who received early versus late APP. Methods Post hoc analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906). Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who received APP for at least one hour were included. Early prone positioning was defined as APP initiated within 24 h of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) start. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and intubation rate. Results We included 125 patients (79 male) with a mean age of 62 years. Of them, 92 (73.6%) received early APP and 33 (26.4%) received late APP. Median time from HFNC initiation to APP was 2.25 (0.8–12.82) vs 36.35 (30.2–75.23) hours in the early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. Average APP duration was 5.07 (2.0–9.05) and 3.0 (1.09–5.64) hours per day in early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. The early APP group had lower mortality compared to the late APP group (26% vs 45%, p = 0.039), but no difference was found in intubation rate. Advanced age (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.0–1.95], p = 0.001), intubation (OR 10.65 [95% CI 2.77–40.91], p = 0.001), longer time to initiate APP (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.0–1.04], p = 0.047) and hydrocortisone use (OR 6.2 [95% CI 1.23–31.1], p = 0.027) were associated with increased mortality. Conclusions Early initiation (< 24 h of HFNC use) of APP in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 improves 28-day survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906.

scholarly journals Awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Pavlov ◽  
Hangyong He ◽  
Bairbre McNicholas ◽  
Yonatan Perez ◽  
Elsa Tavernier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been advocated to improve oxygenation and prevent intubations of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This paper aims to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of APP.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare oxygenation parameters in-hospital intubation rate in patients treated with APP or with standard care.Results: A total of 46 published and 4 unpublished observational studies that included 2994 patients were included. APP was associated with significant improvement of various oxygenation parameters in 19 studies (n=381) that reported this outcome. The intubation rate was 27% (95%CI, 19 to 37%) in the 870 patients treated with APP, as compared to 30% (95%CI, 20 to 42%) in the 852 patients treated with usual care (p=0.71).Conclusions: On the basis of the available evidence, it is not possible to demonstrate efficacy of APP for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure, as assessed by the need for invasive ventilation. Routine implementation of APP outside of a clinical trial is not supported by current evidence. Randomized controlled clinical studies are urgently needed to definitively assess the utility of APP in these patients.Registered on PROSPERO on August 3d, 2020, CRD42020201947.

scholarly journals Standard Care Versus Awake Prone Position in Adult Nonintubated Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19 Infection—A Multicenter Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110144
Author(s):  
Devachandran Jayakumar ◽  
Pratheema Ramachandran, DNB ◽  
Ebenezer Rabindrarajan, DNB ◽  
Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan, MD ◽  
Nagarajan Ramakrishnan, AB ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hypoxic Respiratory Failure

Rationale: The feasibility and safety of awake prone positioning and its impact on outcomes in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to COVID-19 is unknown. Results of the observational studies published during this pandemic have been conflicting. In this context, we conducted a multi-center, parallel group, randomized controlled feasibility study on awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen. Methods: 60 patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia requiring 4 or more liters of oxygen to maintain a saturation of ≥92% were recruited in this study. Thirty patients each were randomized to either standard care or awake prone group. Patients randomized to the prone group were encouraged to self-prone for at least 6 hours a day. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adhering to the protocol in each group. Results: In the prone group, 43% (13 out of 30) of patients were able to self-prone for 6 or more hours a day. In the supine group, 47% (14 out of 30) were completely supine and 53% spent some hours in the prone position, but none exceeded 6 hours. There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes between the 2 groups and there were no adverse events. Conclusions: Awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure is feasible and safe under clinical trial conditions. The results of our feasibility study will potentially help in the design of larger definitive trials to address this key knowledge gap.

scholarly journals Noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal cannula oxygen for preoxygenation before intubation in patients with obesity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maeva Rodriguez ◽  
Stéphanie Ragot ◽  
Rémi Coudroy ◽  
Jean-Pierre Quenot ◽  
Philippe Vignon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Severe Hypoxemia ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Intubation Procedure

Abstract Background Critically ill patients with obesity may have an increased risk of difficult intubation and subsequent severe hypoxemia. We hypothesized that pre-oxygenation with noninvasive ventilation before intubation as compared with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen may decrease the risk of severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity. Methods Post hoc subgroup analysis of critically ill patients with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg·m−2) from a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen before intubation of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mm Hg). The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (pulse oximetry < 80%) during the intubation procedure. Results Among the 313 patients included in the original trial, 91 (29%) had obesity with a mean body mass index of 35 ± 5 kg·m−2. Patients with obesity were more likely to experience an episode of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure than patients without obesity: 34% (31/91) vs. 22% (49/222); difference, 12%; 95% CI 1 to 23%; P = 0.03. Among patients with obesity, 40 received preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and 51 with high-flow nasal oxygen. Severe hypoxemia occurred in 15 patients (37%) with noninvasive ventilation and 16 patients (31%) with high-flow nasal oxygen (difference, 6%; 95% CI − 13 to 25%; P = 0.54). The lowest pulse oximetry values during intubation procedure were 87% [interquartile range, 77–93] with noninvasive ventilation and 86% [78–92] with high-flow nasal oxygen (P = 0.98). After multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity were intubation difficulty scale > 5 points and respiratory primary failure as reason for admission. Conclusions Patients with obesity and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure had an increased risk of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure as compared to patients without obesity. However, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation may not reduce this risk compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. Trial registration Clinical trial number: NCT02668458 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

scholarly journals Noninvasive respiratory support in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other viral infections

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Crimi ◽  
Alberto Noto ◽  
Andrea Cortegiani ◽  
Pietro Impellizzeri ◽  
Mark Elliott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Viral Pneumonia ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Exhaled Air

ABSTRACTIntroductionNoninvasive respiratory support (NRS) such as noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) have been used in the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and other viral infections. However, there is a lack of consensus in favor of or against NRS use due to the risks of worsening hypoxemia, intubation delay, and aerosols environmental contamination associated with the use of these tools. We aimed to summarize the evidence on the use of NRS in adult patients with COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia (i.e. H1N1, SARS, MERS) and AHRF. We also searched for studies evaluating the risk of aerosolization/contamination with these tools.Evidence AcquisitionWe searched MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE and two major preprint servers (biorXiv and medRxiv) from inception to April 14, 2020, for studies on the use of respiratory support in AHRF and viral pneumonia.Evidence SynthesisThe search identified 4086 records and we found only one randomized controlled trial out of 58 studies included, with great variabilities in support utilization and failure rates. Fifteen studies explored the issue of aerosolization/contamination showing a high risk of airborne transmission via droplets generation during the use of these modalitiesConclusionsUse of NRS and treatment failure in the context of COVID-19 and viral infection associated-AHRF, varied widely. Dispersion of exhaled air is different depending on the type of respiratory therapies and interfaces. Data from randomized controlled trials are lacking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document