Early awake proning in critical and severe COVID-19 patients undergoing noninvasive respiratory support: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Acute respiratory failure
COVID-19
Non-invasive mechanical ventilation
Prone position
Journal
Pulmonology
ISSN: 2531-0437
Titre abrégé: Pulmonology
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101723786
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
23
12
2020
revised:
04
03
2021
accepted:
04
03
2021
pubmed:
8
4
2021
medline:
11
5
2022
entrez:
7
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated. A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different. Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/MATERIALS AND METHODS
UNASSIGNED
This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33824084
pii: S2531-0437(21)00077-5
doi: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.03.002
pmc: PMC7983422
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
181-192Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.
Références
Anesthesiology. 2010 Mar;112(3):682-7
pubmed: 20179506
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Apr;8(4):e480
pubmed: 32109372
Eur Respir J. 2020 Jul 23;56(1):
pubmed: 32457195
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Aug;2(8):e474-e484
pubmed: 32835257
JAMA. 2012 Jun 20;307(23):2526-33
pubmed: 22797452
Crit Care. 2020 Jan 30;24(1):28
pubmed: 32000806
Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):e440-e469
pubmed: 32224769
Lancet. 2020 Apr 11;395(10231):1225-1228
pubmed: 32178769
Crit Care. 2020 Dec 18;24(1):698
pubmed: 33339536
Crit Care. 2020 May 24;24(1):250
pubmed: 32448330
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
Crit Care. 2020 Oct 6;24(1):597
pubmed: 33023669
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2338-2340
pubmed: 32412606
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Dec;8(12):1201-1208
pubmed: 32861276
J Crit Care. 2015 Dec;30(6):1390-4
pubmed: 26271685
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2336-2338
pubmed: 32412581
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Aug;8(8):765-774
pubmed: 32569585
Pulmonology. 2020 Jul - Aug;26(4):213-220
pubmed: 32362507
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003 Apr;47(4):416-8
pubmed: 12694139
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug 15;188(4):440-8
pubmed: 23348974
Pulmonology. 2020 Jul - Aug;26(4):204-212
pubmed: 32362505
Chin Med J (Engl). 2020 May 5;133(9):1087-1095
pubmed: 32358325
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):934-943
pubmed: 32167524
Pulmonology. 2021 Jan-Feb;27(1):52-66
pubmed: 32713784
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Dec 1;188(11):1286-93
pubmed: 24134414
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Nov 1;180(11):1537-1539
pubmed: 32584946
Eur Respir J. 2020 Nov 5;56(5):
pubmed: 32747398
JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2195-2198
pubmed: 32329797