Prone Positioning in Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19: A Cohort Study and Analysis of Physiology. (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shelhamer, Mehdi C.; Wesson, Paul D.; Solari, Ian L.; Jensen, Deanna L.; Steele, William Alex; Dimitrov, Vihren G.; Kelly, John Daniel; Aziz, Shazia; Gutierrez, Victor Perez; Vittinghoff, Eric; Chung, Kevin K.; Menon, Vidya P.; Ambris, Herman A.; Baxi, Sanjiv M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of intensive care medicine. Volume 36:Number 2(2021)
• Page Start: 241
• Page End: 252
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: coronavirus disease 2019 -- acute respiratory distress syndrome -- prone position -- severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 -- respiratory failure; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Critical Care -- Periodicals; Soins intensifs -- Périodiques; Soins intensifs; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.02805
• DOI: 10.1177/0885066620980399
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0885-0666

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19. Methods: A cohort study at a New York City hospital at the peak of the early pandemic in the United States, under crisis conditions. The aim was to determine the benefit of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included changes in physiologic parameters. Fine-Gray competing risks models with stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) were used to determine the effect of prone positioning on outcomes. In addition, linear mixed effects models (LMM) were used to assess changes in physiology with prone positioning. Results: Out of 335 participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated, 62 underwent prone positioning, 199 met prone positioning criteria and served as controls and 74 were excluded. The intervention and control groups were similar at baseline. In multivariate-adjusted competing risks models with sIPTW, prone positioning was significantly associated with reduced mortality (SHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46-0.80, P < 0.005). Using LMM to evaluate the impact of positioning maneuvers on physiological parameters, the oxygenation-saturation index was significantly improved during days 1-3 ( P < 0.01) whereas oxygenation-saturation index (OSI), oxygenation-index (OI) and arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (Pa O2 : FiO2 ) were significantly improved during days 4-7 (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Prone positioning in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 is associated with reduced mortality and improved physiologic parameters. One in-hospital death could be averted for every 8 patients treated. Replicating results and scaling the intervention are important, but prone positioning may represent an additional therapeutic option in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.