Prone positioning for ARDS patients-tips for preparation and use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Parhar KKS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7759020 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prone positioning for ARDS patients-tips for preparation and use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Parhar Ken Kuljit S KKS Zuege Danny J DJ Shariff Karen K Knight Gwen G Bagshaw Sean M SM
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie 20201224 4
Many patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning is an important non-pharmacologic strategy that should be considered for all invasively ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS (including those with COVID-19). Prone positioning offers several physiologic and clinical benefits, including improving hypoxemia, matching ventilation with perfusion, reducing regional hyperinflation, and improving survival. To safely o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Real-time effects of changing body position and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on regional lung overdistension and collapse in individual patients remain largely unknown and not timely monitored. The aim of this study was to individualize PEEP in supine and prone body positions seeking to reduce lung collapse and overdistension in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that prone positioning with bedside titrated PEEP would provide attenuation of both overdistension and collapse. In this prospective observational study, patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS under mechanical ventilation were included. We used electrical impedance tomography (EIT) with decremental PEEP titration algorithm (PEEPEIT-titration), which provides information on regional lung overdistension and collapse, along with global respiratory system compliance, to individualize PEEP and body position. PEEPEIT-titration in supine position followed by PEEPEIT-titration in prone position were performed. Immediately before each PEEPEIT-titration, the same lung recruitment maneuver was performed: 2 min of PEEP 24 cmH2O and driving pressure of 15 cmH2O. Forty-two PEEPEIT-titration were performed in ten patients (21 pairs supine and prone positions). We have found larger % of overdistension along the PEEP titration in prone than supine position (P = 0.042). A larger % of collapse along the PEEP titration was found in supine than prone position (P = 0.037). A smaller respiratory system compliance was found in prone than supine position (P < 0.0005). In patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS, prone body position, when compared with supine body position, decreased lung collapse at low PEEP levels, but increased lung overdistension at PEEP levels greater than 10 cm H2O.Trial registration number: NCT04460859.
| S-EPMC9528866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn face of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, best practice for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is intensely debated. Specifically, the rationale for high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS has been questioned.MethodsThe first 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure transferred to a single ICU were assessed. Eight were excluded: five were not invasively ventilated and three received veno-venous ECMO support. The remaining 15 were assessed over the first 15 days of mechanical ventilation. Best PEEP was defined by maximal oxygenation and was determined by structured decremental PEEP trials comprising the monitoring of oxygenation, airway pressures and trans-pulmonary pressures. In nine patients the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation was investigated. Additionally, the effects of high PEEP and prone positioning on pulmonary opacities in serial chest x-rays were determined by applying a semiquantitative scoring-system. This investigation is part of the prospective observational PA-COVID-19 study.FindingsPatients responded to initiation of invasive high PEEP ventilation with markedly improved oxygenation, which was accompanied by reduced pulmonary opacities within 6 h of mechanical ventilation. Decremental PEEP trials confirmed the need for high PEEP (17.9 (SD ± 3.9) mbar) for optimal oxygenation, while driving pressures remained low. Prone positioning substantially increased oxygenation (p<0.01).InterpretationIn early COVID-19 ARDS, substantial PEEP values were required for optimizing oxygenation. Pulmonary opacities resolved during mechanical ventilation with high PEEP suggesting recruitment of lung volume.FundingGerman Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
| S-EPMC7547915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many more patients were turned prone than before, resulting in a considerable increase in workload. Whether extending duration of prone position may be beneficial has received little attention. We report here benefits and detriments of a strategy of extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsA eetrospective, monocentric, study was performed on intensive care unit patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who required tracheal intubation and who have been treated with at least one session of prone position of duration greater or equal to 24 h. When prone positioning sessions were initiated, patients were kept prone for a period that covered two nights. Data regarding the incidence of pressure injury and ventilation parameters were collected retrospectively on medical and nurse files of charts. The primary outcome was the occurrence of pressure injury of stage ≥ II during the ICU stay.ResultsFor the 81 patients included, the median duration of prone positioning sessions was 39 h [interquartile range (IQR) 34-42]. The cumulated incidence of stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26% [95% CI 17-37] and 2.5% [95% CI 0.3-8.8] for stages III/IV pressure injuries. Patients were submitted to a median of 2 sessions [IQR 1-4] and for 213 (94%) prone positioning sessions, patients were turned over to supine position during daytime, i.e., between 9 AM and 6 PM. This increased duration was associated with additional increase in oxygenation after 16 h with the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increasing from 150 mmHg [IQR 121-196] at H+ 16 to 162 mmHg [IQR 124-221] before being turned back to supine (p = 0.017).ConclusionIn patients with extended duration of prone position up to 39 h, cumulative incidence for stage ≥ II pressure injuries was 26%, with 25%, 2.5%, and 0% for stage II, III, and IV, respectively. Oxygenation continued to increase significantly beyond the standard 16-h duration. Our results may have significant impact on intensive care unit staffing and patients' respiratory conditions.Trial registrationInstitutional review board 00006477 of HUPNVS, Université Paris Cité, APHP, with the reference: CER-2021-102, obtained on October 11th 2021. Registered at Clinicaltrials (NCT05124197).
| S-EPMC9263064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWhen 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.ConclusionsIn 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.
| S-EPMC8343350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is currently applied in time-limited daily sessions up to 24 h which determines that most patients require several sessions. Although longer prone sessions have been reported, there is scarce evidence about the feasibility and safety of such approach. We analyzed feasibility and safety of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy implemented nationwide, in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients in Chile.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), conducted in 15 Intensive Care Units, which adhered to a national protocol of continuous prone sessions ≥ 48 h and until PaO2:FiO2 increased above 200 mm Hg. The number and extension of prone sessions were registered, along with relevant physiologic data and adverse events related to prone positioning. The cohort was stratified according to the first prone session duration: Group A, 2-3 days; Group B, 4-5 days; and Group C, > 5 days. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess whether the duration of prone sessions could impact safety.ResultsWe included 417 patients who required a first prone session of 4 (3-5) days, of whom 318 (76.3%) received only one session. During the first prone session the main adverse event was grade 1-2 pressure sores in 97 (23.9%) patients; severe adverse events were infrequent with 17 non-scheduled extubations (4.2%). 90-day mortality was 36.2%. Ninety-eight patients (24%) were classified as group C; they exhibited a more severe ARDS at baseline, as reflected by lower PaO2:FiO2 ratio and higher ventilatory ratio, and had a higher rate of pressure sores (44%) and higher 90-day mortality (48%). However, after adjustment for severity and several relevant confounders, prone session duration was not associated with mortality or pressure sores.ConclusionsNationwide implementation of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy for COVID-19 ARDS patients was feasible. Minor pressure sores were frequent but within the ranges previously described, while severe adverse events were infrequent. The duration of prone session did not have an adverse effect on safety.
| S-EPMC9702866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a surge of patients with refractory hypoxaemic respiratory failure being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Prone positioning can improve oxygenation but requires a team of skilled personnel to complete safely. Critical care physiotherapists (PTs) are ideally suited to lead proning teams, due to their expertise in moving critically unwell, invasively ventilated patients.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the feasibility of implementing a physiotherapy-led intensive proning (PhLIP) team to support the critical care team during surges.MethodsThis study involves descriptive evaluation of feasibility and implementation of the PhLIP team, a novel model of care, during the Delta wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, through a retrospective, observational audit of PhLIP team activity, ICU clinical activity, and a description of clinical outcomes.ResultsBetween 17 September and 19 November 2021, 93 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU. Fifty-one patients (55%) were positioned prone, a median [interquartile range] 2 [2, 5] times, for a mean (±standard deviation) duration of 16 (±2) h, across 161 episodes. Twenty-three PTs were upskilled and deployed to the PhLIP team, adding 2.0 equivalent full time to the daily service. Ninety-four percent of prone episodes (154) were led by the PhLIP PTs with a median 4 [interquartile range: 2, 8] turns per day. Potential airway adverse events occurred on three occasions (1.8%) and included an endotracheal tube leak, displacement, and obstruction. Each incident was promptly managed without prolonged impact on the patient. No manual handling injuries were reported.ConclusionThe implementation of a physiotherapy-led proning team was safe and feasible and can release critical care-trained medical and nursing staff to other duties in the ICU.
| S-EPMC9922573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Prone positioning reduces mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite this, most patients with ARDS do not receive this lifesaving therapy.Objectives: To identify determinants of prone-positioning use, to develop specific implementation strategies, and to incorporate strategies into an overarching response to the COVID-19 crisis.Methods: We used an implementation-mapping approach guided by implementation-science frameworks. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians who staffed 12 ICUs within the Penn Medicine Health System and the University of Michigan Medical Center. We performed thematic analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We then conducted three focus groups with a task force of ICU leaders to develop an implementation menu, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework. The implementation strategies were adapted as part of the Penn Medicine COVID-19 pandemic response.Results: We identified five broad themes of determinants of prone positioning, including knowledge, resources, alternative therapies, team culture, and patient factors, which collectively spanned all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains. The task force developed five specific implementation strategies, including educational outreach, learning collaborative, clinical protocol, prone-positioning team, and automated alerting, elements of which were rapidly implemented at Penn Medicine.Conclusions: We identified five broad themes of determinants of evidence-based use of prone positioning for severe ARDS and several specific strategies to address these themes. These strategies may be feasible for rapid implementation to increase use of prone positioning for severe ARDS with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7869786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly increased the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), necessitating respiratory support. This strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources forces clinicians to limit the use of mechanical ventilation by seeking novel therapeutic strategies. Awake-prone positioning appears to be a safe and tolerable intervention for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Meanwhile, several observational studies and meta-analyses have reported the early use of prone positioning in awake patients with COVID-19-related ARDS (C-ARDS) for improving oxygenation levels and preventing ICU transfers. Indeed, some international guidelines have recommended the early application of awake-prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure attributable to C-ARDS. However, its effectiveness in reducing intubation rate, mortality, applied timing, and optimal duration is unclear. High-quality evidence of awake-prone positioning for hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 is still lacking. Therefore, this article provides an update on the current state of published literature about the physiological rationale, effect, timing, duration, and populations that might benefit from awake proning. Moreover, the risks and adverse effects of awake-prone positioning were also investigated. This work will guide future studies and aid clinicians in deciding on better treatment plans.
| S-EPMC8858818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IMPORTANCE: Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020–2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018–2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency. RESULTS: Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7–57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.
| S-EPMC9243245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes.Research questionHow have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use?Study design and methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning.ResultsForty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs.InterpretationProne positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.
| S-EPMC10560392 | biostudies-literature