Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kishaba T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10713302 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial.
Journal of thoracic disease 20231117 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBenefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone.MethodsIn this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days.ResultsMedian time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively).ConclusionsAwake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.
| S-EPMC10276908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is a leading treatment technique for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but its treatment failure rate remains high. The awake prone position (APP) has been proven to increase oxygenation and reduce the endotracheal intubation rate in patients with COVID-19-induced AHRF. However, the APP is poorly tolerated in patients, and its performance in improving prognoses is controversial. The lateral position has a similar mechanism and effect to the prone position, but it is more tolerable than the prone position. Therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lateral position is better for awake patients with AHRF.MethodsThis is a protocol for a three-arm parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled open-label exploratory trial. A total of 583 patients from two hospitals in Chongqing, China, will be randomised to take the semi-recumbent position, lateral position, or prone position at a ratio of 1:1:1. Patients are all diagnosed with AHRF secondary to non-COVID-19 pneumonia or lung infection and receiving HFNO therapy. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days in 28 days. The secondary outcomes are the 28-day intubation rate, 28-day all-cause mortality, total position change time, the incidence of adverse events, number of hours using HFNO therapy, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and others. We will conduct subgroup analyses on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspiration oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (> 200 mmHg or ≤ 200 mmHg), time from admission to intervention implementation (< 24 h or ≥ 24 h), position changing time, and different diagnoses.DiscussionThis trial will explore the prognostic effects of the APP with that of the lateral position in awake patients with non-COVID-19AHRF and compare the differences between them. To provide evidence for clinical decision-making and further research on position management.Trial registrationThis trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number is ChiCTR2200055822 . Registered on January 20, 2022.
| S-EPMC10683165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that an awake prone position may be beneficial for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in patients with COVID-19, but the results are not consistent, especially in terms of oxygenation outcomes and intubation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of the awake prone position on AHRF in patients with COVID-19 with all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsAn extensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 December 2019 to 30 October 2022, with no language restrictions was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the PRISMA statement. We only included RCTs and used the Cochrane risk assessment tool for quality assessment.ResultsFourteen RCTs fulfilled the selection criteria, and 3,290 patients were included. A meta-analysis found that patients in the awake prone position group had more significant improvement in the SpO2/FiO2 ratio [mean difference (MD): 29.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-48.13; P = 0.001] compared with the usual care. The prone position also reduced the need for intubation [odd ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.84; P < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%]. There was no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events between the two groups.ConclusionThe awake prone position was a promising intervention method, which is beneficial to improve the oxygenation of patients with ARDS or AHRF caused by COVID-19 and reduce the need for intubation. However, the awake prone position showed no obvious advantage in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of ICU admission, and adverse events.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier: CRD42022367885.
| S-EPMC10111056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe hypoxemic respiratory failure is frequently managed with invasive mechanical ventilation with or without prone position (PP). We describe 13 cases of nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) of varied etiology, who were treated successfully in PP without the need for intubation. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, supplementary oxygen with venturi face mask, or nasal cannula were used variedly in these patients. Mechanical ventilatory support is offered to patients with AHRF when other methods, such as NIV and oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, fail. Invasive mechanical ventilation is fraught with complications which could be immediate, ranging from worsening of hypoxemia, worsening hemodynamics, loss of airway, and even death. Late complications could be ventilator-associated pneumonia, biotrauma, tracheal stenosis, etc. Prone position is known to improve oxygenation and outcome in adult respiratory distress syndrome. We postulated that positioning an unintubated patient with AHRF in PP will improve oxygenation and avoid the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and thereby its complications. Here, we describe a series of 13 patients with hypoxemic respiratory of varied etiology, who were successfully treated in the PP without endotracheal intubation. Two patients (15.4%) had mild, nine (69.2%) had moderate, and two (15.4%) had severe hypoxemia. Oxygenation as assessed by PaO2/FiO2 ratio in supine position was 154 ± 52, which improved to 328 ± 65 after PP. Alveolar to arterial (A-a) O2 gradient improved from a median of 170.5 mm Hg interquartile range (IQR) (127.8, 309.7) in supine position to 49.1 mm Hg IQR (45.0, 56.6) after PP. This improvement in oxygenation took a median of 46 hours, IQR (24, 109). Thus, voluntary PP maneuver improved oxygenation and avoided endotracheal intubation in a select group of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. This maneuver may be relevant in the ongoing novel coronavirus disease pandemic by potentially reducing endotracheal intubation and the need for ventilator and therefore better utilization of critical care services.How to cite this articleRao SV, Udhayachandar R, Rao VB, Raju NA, Nesaraj JJJ, Kandasamy S, et al. Voluntary Prone Position for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Unintubated Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(7):557-562.
| S-EPMC7482355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsFifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔPES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure-time product per minute (sPTPES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (VT), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (VT/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography.ResultsCompared to supine position, prone position increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76-129] vs. 74 [69-93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22-26] vs. 27 [26-30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔPES (12 cmH2O [11-13] vs. 9 [8-12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTPES (131 [75-154] cmH2O s min-1 vs. 105 [81-129], p > 0.99) and ΔPL (9 [7-11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5-9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units-3 [4-11] vs. 6 [4-9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32-61] vs. 0.40 [0.37-0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414-8547] vs. 1456 [959-2420], p = 0.002) and promoted VT distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting VT size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16-0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30-0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7-57] of VT in prone vs. 31% [14-55] in supine position, p > 0.99).ConclusionsProne position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes VT distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting VT size, ΔPL, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔPES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔPES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔPES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.
| S-EPMC10433569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommon foot problems are independent risk factors for falls in older people. There is evidence that podiatry can prevent falls in community-dwelling populations. The feasibility of implementing a podiatry intervention and trial in the care home population is unknown. To inform a potential future definitive trial, we performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to assess: (i) the feasibility of a trial of a podiatry intervention to reduce care home falls, and (ii) the potential direction and magnitude of the effect of the intervention in terms of number of falls in care home residents.MethodsInformed by Medical Research Council guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions, we conducted a single blind, pilot randomised controlled trial in six care homes in the East of Scotland. Participants were randomised to either: (i) a three month podiatry intervention comprising core podiatry care, foot and ankle exercises, orthoses and footwear provision or (ii) usual care. Falls-related outcomes (number of falls, time to first fall) and feasibility-related outcomes (recruitment, retention, adherence, data collection rates) were collected. Secondary outcomes included: generic health status, balance, mobility, falls efficacy, and ankle joint strength.Results474 care home residents were screened. 43 (9.1%) participants were recruited: 23 to the intervention, 20 to control. Nine (21%) participants were lost to follow-up due to declining health or death. It was feasible to deliver the trial elements in the care home setting. 35% of participants completed the exercise programme. 48% reported using the orthoses 'all or most of the time'. Completion rates of the outcome measures were between 93% and 100%. No adverse events were reported. At the nine month follow-up period, the intervention group per-person fall rate was 0.77 falls vs. 0.83 falls in the control group.ConclusionsA podiatry intervention to reduce falls can be delivered to care home residents within a pilot randomised controlled trial of the intervention. Although not powered to determine effectiveness, these preliminary data provide justification for a larger trial, incorporating a full process evaluation, to determine whether this intervention can significantly reduce falls in this high-risk population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02178527 ; Date of registration: 17 June 2014.
| S-EPMC5508629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo perform an economic evaluation on a multicomponent intervention programme for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome compared with usual clinical practice in primary care.DesignA cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04049006) from a societal perspective, a human capital approach, and a 1-year time horizon.PatientsPatients diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome from the public health system in south Catalonia, Spain.MethodsCrude and adjusted incremental cost- utility ratios were estimated to compare the treatment strategies based on cost estimations (direct medical costs and productivity losses) and quality-adjusted life years. One-way and 2-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe final analysed sample comprised 297 individuals, 161 in the intervention group and 136 in the control group. A crude incremental cost-utility ratio of € 1,780.75 and an adjusted ratio of € 851.67 were obtained, indicating that the programme significantly improved patients' quality of life with a cost-increasing outcome that fell below the cost-effectiveness threshold. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings when varying large cost components, and showed dominance when increasing session attendance.ConclusionThe proposed multicomponent intervention programme was cost-effective compared with usual care for fibromyalgia, which supports its addition to standard practice in the regional primary care service.
| S-EPMC10753594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care.MethodsWe did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581.FindingsBetween May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care.InterpretationThe stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC7323615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn-bed cycling with patients with critical illness has been shown to be safe and feasible, and improves physical function outcomes at hospital discharge. The effects of early in-bed cycling on reducing the rate of skeletal muscle atrophy, and associations with physical and cognitive function are unknown.Methods and analysisA single-centre randomised controlled trial in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) will be conducted. Adult patients (n=68) who are expected to be mechanically ventilated for more than 48 hours and remain in ICU for a further 48 hours from recruitment will be randomly allocated into either (1) a usual care group or (2) a group that receives usual care and additional in-bed cycling sessions. The primary outcome is change in rectus femoris cross-sectional area at day 10 in comparison to baseline measured by blinded assessors. Secondary outcome measures include muscle strength, incidence of ICU-acquired weakness, handgrip strength, time to achieve functional milestones (sitting out of bed, walking), Functional Status Score in ICU, ICU Mobility Scale, 6 min walk test 1 week post-ICU discharge, incidence of delirium and quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire Five Levels scale). Quality of life assessments will be conducted post-ICU admission at day 10, 3 and 6 months after acute hospital discharge. Participants in the intervention group will complete an acceptability of intervention questionnaire.Ethics and disseminationAppropriate ethical approval from Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee has been attained. Results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at scientific conferences to assist planning of future multicentre randomised controlled trials (if indicated) that will test in-bed cycling as an intervention to improve the physical, cognitive and health-related quality of life outcomes of patients with critical illness.Trial registration numberThis trial has been prospectively registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12616000948493); Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5665265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResidents of care homes have high levels of disability and poor mobility, but the promotion of health and wellbeing within care homes is poorly realised. Residents spend the majority of their time sedentary which leads to increased dependency and, coupled with poor postural management, can have many adverse outcomes including pressure sores, pain and reduced social interaction. The intervention being tested in this project (the Skilful Care Training Package) aims to increase the awareness and skills of care staff in relation to poor posture in the older, less mobile adult and highlight the benefits of activity, and how to skilfully assist activity, in this group to enable mobility and reduce falls risk. Feasibility work will be undertaken to inform the design of a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial, aiming to recruit at least 12-15 residents at each of 10 care homes across Yorkshire. Care homes will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either the Skilful Care Training Package alongside usual care or to continue to provide usual care alone. Assessments will be undertaken by blinded researchers with participating residents at baseline (before care home randomisation) and at three and six months post randomisation. Data relating to changes in physical activity, mobility, posture, mood and quality of life will be collected. Data at the level of the home will also be collected and will include staff experience of care and changes in the numbers and types of adverse events residents experience (for example, hospital admissions, falls). Details of NHS service usage will be collected to inform the economic analysis. An embedded process evaluation will explore intervention delivery and its acceptability to staff and residents.DiscussionParticipant uptake, engagement and retention are key feasibility outcomes. Exploration of barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery will inform intervention optimisation. Study results will inform progression to a definitive trial and add to the body of evidence for good practice in care home research.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN50080330 . Registered on 27 March 2017.
| S-EPMC6154918 | biostudies-literature