Analytic review and meta-analysis of awake prone positioning in patients with Covid-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Santa Cruz R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629725 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Analytic review and meta-analysis of awake prone positioning in patients with Covid-19.
Santa Cruz R R Irrazábal C C Gonzalez L L Geloso A A Nuñez C C Cornejo R R
Medicina intensiva 20211130 10
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9499134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of awake prone positioning (aPP) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of aPP in acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies reporting on the clinical course of patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 treated or not treated by aPP were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (ProsperoID: CRD42022333211). The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation; the individual components of the primary outcome were secondary study outcomes. The composite of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation was available for 6 studies (1884 patients), five randomized and one prospective; a significant reduction in the risk of this outcome was observed in patients treated vs. not treated by aPP (33.5% vs. 39.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; I2 0%). In-hospital death was reported in 34 studies (6808 patients) and occurred in 17.4% vs. 23.5% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (random effect OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79; I2 59%); orotracheal intubation was observed in 25.8% vs. 32.7% of patients treated or not treated with aPP (27 studies, 5369 patients; random effect OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56-1.27; I2 84%). aPP reduces the risk for death or orotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the clinical benefit of aPP outside the ICU.Registration Prospero ID: CRD42022333211.
| S-EPMC10827908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Prone positioning is known to reduce mortality in intubated non-COVID-19 patients suffering from moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, studies highlighting the effect of awake proning in COVID-19 patients are lacking. We aim to conduct a systematic review of the available literature to highlight the effect of awake proning on the need for intubation, improvement in oxygenation and mortality rates in COVID-19 patients with ARDS. Method – A systematic search of 2 medical databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) was performed until July 5, 2020. Thirteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 210 patients were included for the final analysis. Result –Majority of the patients were above 50 years of age with a male gender predominance (69%). Face mask (26%) was the most common interface used for oxygen therapy. The intubation and mortality rates were 23.80% (50/210) and 5.41% (5/203) respectively. Awake proning resulted in improvement in oxygenation (reported by 11/13 studies): improvement in SpO2, P/F ratio, PO2 and SaO2 reported by 7/13 (54%), 5/13 (38%), 2/13 (15%) and 1/13 (8%) of the studies. No major complications associated with prone positioning were reported by the included studies. Conclusion Awake prone positioning demonstrated an improvement in oxygenation of the patients suffering from COVID-19 related respiratory disease. Need for intubation was observed in less than 30% of the patients. Thus, we recommend early and frequent proning in patients suffering from COVID-19 associated ARDS, however, randomized controlled trials are needed before any definite conclusions are drawn.
| S-EPMC7521914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning (APP) has been widely used in non-intubated COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. However, high-quality evidence to support its use in severe COVID-19 patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) is inadequate. Therefore, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of APP for intubation requirements and other important outcomes in this patient population.MethodsWe searched for potentially relevant articles in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception to May 25, 2022. Studies focusing on COVID-19 adults in ICU who received APP compared to controls were included. The primary outcome was the intubation requirement. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ICU stay, and adverse events. Study quality was independently assessed, and we also conducted subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias to explore the potential influence factors.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials with 1,686 patients were eligible. The quality of the included studies was low to moderate. Overall, the intubation rate was 35.2% in the included patients. The mean daily APP duration ranged from <6 to 9 h, with poor adherence to APP protocols. When pooling, APP significantly reduced intubation requirement (risk ratio [RR] 0.84; 95%CI, 0.74-0.95; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.007). Subgroup analyses confirmed the reduced intubation rates in patients who were older (≥60 years), obese, came from a high mortality risk population (>20%), received HFNC/NIV, had lower SpO2/FiO2 (<150 mmHg), or undergone longer duration of APP (≥8 h). However, APP showed no beneficial effect on mortality (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.77-1.10; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.37] and length of ICU stay (mean difference = -0.58 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to 1.32; I 2 = 63%; P = 0.55).ConclusionAPP significantly reduced intubation requirements in ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without affecting the outcomes of mortality and ICU stay. Further studies with better APP protocol adherence will be needed to define the subgroup of patients most likely to benefit from this strategy.
| S-EPMC9500207 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10894415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285.FindingsA total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU.FundingOpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
| S-EPMC8926412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake-prone positioning was widely used in COVID-19, combined with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, effectively reducing intubation, and the effect on mortality is controversial. We aim to reevaluate the efficacy of awake-prone positioning in COVID-19 and summarize the protocol for awake-prone positioning.MethodsWe gathered data on the treatment of COVID-19 using awake-prone positioning from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and CNKI. All the included studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Two researchers used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess the methodological quality of the literature. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation system.ResultsThirteen articles were included. The quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed that 3 articles were high quality, and 4 were moderate quality. The evidence quality assessment of 41 primary outcomes by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation indicates that 9 indicators were of moderate quality, 21 were of low quality, and 6 were of very low quality.ConclusionsThe review demonstrates high methodological quality, but the evidence quality of its outcome indicators is low. Awake-prone position has been shown to decrease intubation and improve oxygenation in COVID-19 patients. It is recommended to consult the latest quality assessment standards to develop more rigorous experimental protocols, improve research quality, and facilitate the translation of research findings.
| S-EPMC11835137 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7450241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19.DesignSystematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses.Study eligibilityRandomized trials comparing awake prone positioning versus usual care in adults with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure. Information sources were Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 4 March 2022.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for endotracheal intubation and mortality outcomes. GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed for outcomes.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, escalation of oxygen modality, change in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and adverse events.Results17 trials (2931 patients) met the eligibility criteria. 12 trials were at low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and two were at high risk. Awake prone positioning reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with usual care (crude average 24.2% v 29.8%, relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.94; high certainty). This translates to 55 fewer intubations per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 87 to 19 fewer intubations). Awake prone positioning did not significantly affect secondary outcomes, including mortality (15.6% v 17.2%, relative risk 0.90, 0.76 to 1.07; high certainty), ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.97 days, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.4; low certainty), ICU length of stay (-2.1 days, -4.5 to 0.4; low certainty), hospital length of stay (-0.09 days, -0.69 to 0.51; moderate certainty), and escalation of oxygen modality (21.4% v 23.0%, relative risk 1.04, 0.74 to 1.44; low certainty). Adverse events related to awake prone positioning were uncommon. Bayesian meta-analysis showed a high probability of benefit with awake prone positioning for endotracheal intubation (non-informative prior, mean relative risk 0.83, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.97; posterior probability for relative risk <0.95=96%) but lower probability for mortality (0.90, 0.73 to 1.13; <0.95=68%).ConclusionsAwake prone positioning compared with usual care reduces the risk of endotracheal intubation in adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19 but probably has little to no effect on mortality or other outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022314856.
| S-EPMC9727649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning (APP) has been considered as a feasible treatment for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of APP remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effect of APP on intubation rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure.MethodsRelevant studies published from January 1, 2020, to June 17, 2022, were systematically searched. The primary outcomes were the intubation rate and mortality; the secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events.ResultsOf 5746 identified publications, 22 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (N = 5146 patients). In comparison to the non-APP group, APP could decrease the intubation rates (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.83; P = .001), particularly in the subgroup of the daily median duration of APP > 8 h and in the subgroup of receiving high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Patients treated with APP were associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; P = .0008), but no mortality benefit was found in the APP group in the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.71; P = .56).ConclusionOur results demonstrated that APP could be an effective strategy to avoid intubation without detrimental effects in non-intubated patients with COVID-19, especially for patients requiring HFNC or NIV, and the daily APP duration with the target of minimally eight hours was suggested. In the subgroup of RCTs, the pooled results did not demonstrate any benefit of APP on mortality. Given the limited number of RCTs, further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the results.Inplasy registration numberINPLASY2021110037.
| S-EPMC9412157 | biostudies-literature