Early awake proning in critical and severe COVID-19 patients undergoing noninvasive respiratory support: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
Authors:
- Roberto TonelliRoberto Tonelli
- Lara PisaniLPLara Pisani
- Luca TabbìLTLuca Tabbì
- Vittoria ComelliniVCVittoria Comellini
- Irene PredilettoIPIrene Prediletto
- Riccardo FantiniRFRiccardo Fantini
- Alessandro MarchioniAlessandro Marchioni
- Dario AndrisaniDADario Andrisani
- Filippo GozziFGFilippo Gozzi
- Giulia BruzziGBGiulia Bruzzi
- Linda ManicardiLMLinda Manicardi
- Stefano BusaniSBStefano Busani
Open Access
- 30 May 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Pulmonology
- Vol. 28 (3) , 181-192
Abstract
This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-monthperiod (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.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Potential association between COVID-19 mortality and health-care resource availabilityThe Lancet Global Health, 2020
- Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, ChinaJAMA, 2020
- Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort studyCritical Care, 2020
- Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A retrospective studyJournal of Critical Care, 2015
- Prone Position in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Rationale, Indications, and LimitsAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2013
- Effects of Prone Positioning on Lung Protection in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2013
- Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeJAMA, 2012
- Lung Ventilation and Perfusion in Prone and Supine Postures with Reference to Anesthetized and Mechanically Ventilated Healthy VolunteersAnesthesiology, 2010
- Response to the prone position in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failureActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2003
- A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing RiskJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1999