Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Review ArticleNarrative Review

Adverse Events of Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With ARDS

Felipe González-Seguel, Juan José Pinto-Concha, Nadine Aranis and Jaime Leppe
Respiratory Care December 2021, 66 (12) 1898-1911; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.09194
Felipe González-Seguel
Servicio de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación and Departamento de Paciente Crítico, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
Master Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, School of Physical Therapy, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Juan José Pinto-Concha
Master Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, School of Physical Therapy, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
Centro de Paciente Crítico Adulto, Clínica INDISA, Santiago, Chile.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nadine Aranis
Servicio de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación and Departamento de Paciente Crítico, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
Master Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, School of Physical Therapy, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jaime Leppe
Master Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, School of Physical Therapy, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is a therapy utilized globally to improve gas exchange, minimize ventilator-induced lung injury, and reduce mortality in ARDS, particularly during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Whereas the respiratory benefits of prone positioning in ARDS have been accepted, the concurrent complications could be undervalued. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the adverse events (AEs) related to prone positioning in ARDS and, secondarily, to collect strategies and recommendations to mitigate these AEs.

METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched recommendation documents and original studies published between June 2013 and November 2020 from 6 relevant electronic databases and the websites of intensive care societies.

RESULTS: We selected 41 documents from 121 eligible documents, comprising 13 recommendation documents and 28 original studies (involving 1,578 subjects and 994 prone maneuvers). We identified > 40 individual AEs, and the highest-pooled occurrence rates were those of severe desaturation (37.9%), barotrauma (30.5%), pressure sores (29.7%), ventilation-associated pneumonia (28.2%), facial edema (16.7%), arrhythmia (15.4%), hypotension (10.2%), and peripheral nerve injuries (8.1%). The reported mitigation strategies during prone positioning included alternate face rotation (18 [43.9%]), repositioning every 2 h (17 [41.5%]), and the use of pillows under the chest and pelvis (14 [34.1%]). The reported mitigation strategies for performing the prone maneuver comprised one person being at the headboard (23 [56.1%]), the use of a pre-maneuver safety checklist (18 [43.9%]), vital sign monitoring (15 [36.6%]), and ensuring appropriate ventilator settings (12 [29.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS: We identified > 40 AEs reported in prone positioning ARDS studies, including additional AEs not yet reported by previous systematic reviews. The pooled AE proportions collected in this review could guide research and clinical practice decisions, and the strategies to mitigate AEs could promote future consensus-based recommendations.

  • prone position
  • mechanical ventilation
  • ARDS
  • respiratory failure
  • adverse events
  • complications

Introduction

ARDS has a mortality rate of 20%–48%,1-3 and survivors commonly experience long-term physical, cognitive, and mental impairments.4,5 Prone positioning is among the well-known strategies to counteract ARDS6-8 and is an inexpensive intervention that requires no complex technology, making it feasible worldwide.9 In particular, early (12–24 h after ARDS diagnosis) and extended prone positioning (> 16 h per d) demonstrated decreased mortality from 41 to 24% in the 2013 Proning Severe ARDS Patients (PROSEVA) trial10 when compared with supine positioning. Subsequently, prone positioning has been incorporated as a strong recommendation in international practice guidelines of ARDS,11-14 including the World Health Organization guidelines for the management of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).15

Although prone positioning is an established therapy worldwide for improving gas exchange, minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury, and reducing mortality in ARDS,10,16 the literature demonstrates several adverse events (AEs), such as unplanned extubation, removal of invasive devices, transient desaturation, airway obstruction, facial edema, and pressure sores.10,17-21 Currently, prone positioning has been widely applied even in awake patients supported with noninvasive ventilation or oxygen therapy22; however, patients who are mechanically ventilated and sedated are more likely to experience complications related to position changes. Four systematic reviews with meta-analyses involving up to 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2001 and 2013 (including the PROSEVA trial) revealed that a significant increase in new pressure sores, airway obstruction, and unplanned extubation occurred with prone positioning than with supine positioning.23-26

Since the publication of the PROSEVA trial, and particularly from the onset of the ongoing pandemic, global recommendations for prone positioning have been given greater emphasis,11-14 which could lead to an increase in the incidence and intensity of AEs. This is predominantly relevant for inexperienced clinicians in prone positioning processes, who may be compelled to undertake this therapy during the pandemic.27 To safely prone ventilated patients with ARDS in ICUs, minimizing human resource impacts, appropriate training, simulation, and health system planning must be undertaken.28 Numerous guidelines recommend safe tips to minimize risk29-31; however, to implement prone positioning, clinicians must also recognize and consider the potential AEs. Whereas the respiratory benefits of prone positioning in patients with ARDS are widely accepted, the concurrent complications could be undervalued. Although some reviews on prone positioning have compiled AEs,21,30,32 there have been no reviews that specifically included studies after the PROSEVA trial. Moreover, there are no reviews that fully collected AEs associated with prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS. Therefore, a scoping review is a recommended first step to systematically map the available literature from this landmark point.33,34

Accordingly, the primary objective of this study was to identify AEs related to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and, secondarily, to collect strategies and recommendations to mitigate the AEs during prone positioning implementation.

Review of the Literature

Study Design

This scoping review of the AEs of prone positioning was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework34,35 and followed the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.36 The protocol was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols database (registration number: INPLASY2020120020), which is available at https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0020. Ethical approval was not required in this study.

Research Question

The research questions of this scoping review were formulated based on the authors' concern about the type and quantity of AEs associated with prone positioning, especially after the publication of the PROSEVA trial,10 and even more during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We structured the research questions using the population, concept, and context method,34 searching for AEs related to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adult subjects with ARDS and strategies or recommendations to mitigate AEs of prone positioning implementation.

Operational Definitions

AEs were defined according to the conceptual framework of the International Classification for Patient Safety37 as incidents that can be a reportable circumstance, near miss, no-harm incident, or harmful incident involving an unintentional and/or unexpected event or occurrence that may result in injury or death. AEs can be classified as those associated with the prone positioning maneuver and those associated with the management of patients while in the prone position and can be detected during or immediately following the prone maneuver, including oxygen desaturation, loss of intravascular lines, unscheduled extubation, and hemodynamic instability, or as a long-term finding, including peripheral nerve injuries and pressure sores.30 For the purposes of extraction, AEs were also considered as complications or adverse effects and were classified individually and by domain group according to type or the bodily system affected. Mitigation strategy was defined as any measure, effort, or recommendation to minimize or avoid AEs during the prone positioning maneuver or during the period when the subject was in the prone position.30

Search Strategy

Biomedical database searches and hand searching were performed between October 26, 2020, and November 1, 2020, (JJP-C, FG-S) following stages recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (for more details of the search strategy, (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). The main search was carried out in the following biomedical databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scientific Electronic Library Online Citation Index (Clarivate, London, England), Cochrane Library (free access from the Chilean Ministry of Health), LILACS, and WorldWideScience. The details of the search strategy used for each database are presented in Supplementary Material Table S1 (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). The hand search was undertaken to acquire recommendation documents in the websites of scientific societies affiliated with the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care.

Eligibility Criteria

Based on the population, concept, and context method, the following inclusion criteria were established: (1) population: mechanically ventilated subjects who required prone positioning due to ARDS; (2) concept: AE reporting; and (3) context: documents involving subjects in the ICU published from June 1, 2013, to November 1, 2020. The start of the study period was established from the publication date of the PROSEVA trial (included).10

We included original studies (randomized, controlled trials; nonrandomized trials; prospective and retrospective observational studies; case reports; and any letter, editorial, or correspondence with original data) and recommendation documents that provided advice to avoid or minimize AEs (including care protocols, guidelines, or any nonoriginal study providing clinical recommendations). The exclusion criteria were documents on awake prone positioning (ie, receiving noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula), pediatric or neonatal population, animal or experimental models, unavailable full text, and documents written in languages other than English or Spanish. Documents that did not mention the presence or absence of AEs among subjects who underwent prone positioning were excluded from data extraction. Additionally, reviews were excluded from data extraction but were used to look for nonduplicate citations of pertinent documents.

Document Selection

Two reviewers blinded from each other’s judgment (JJP-C, NA) independently screened all documents related to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS using the title, abstract, and full text according to the eligibility criteria previously described. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (FG-S). For more details of the document selection, (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Data Extraction and Analysis

The authors (JJP-C, NA, FG-S) collectively developed a standardized data charting form that included relevant variables according to the research questions. The data charting form was iteratively updated as needed, and each author independently abstracted the information from the recommendation documents (JJP-C, NA) and original studies (JJP-C, FG-S), including all supplementary materials (for more details of the data extraction, see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

We generated summary tables reporting counts and percentages for document characteristics, AE proportions, and a compilation of available mitigation strategies and recommendations to minimize or avoid AEs. To calculate the pooled proportion of AEs according to the subjects in the prone position, we used the proportion of subjects who experienced AE and divided this value by the total number of subjects who received prone positioning (according to the data from the original studies). To calculate the pooled proportion of AEs according to the number of prone positioning maneuvers, we used the proportion of the number of AE occurrences during the prone maneuver and divided this value by the total number of positioning change maneuvers performed (according to the data from the original studies). When possible, we presented descriptive data as overall or pooled medians (interquartile range [IQR] or minimum-maximum [min-max]).

Results

Literature Search and Document Characteristics

This scoping review was conducted between August 2020 and March 2021. The literature search identified 732 citations from scientific databases and 19 from the manual searches. After removing duplicates and screening by title and abstract, 134 full texts were reviewed, yielding 121 eligible documents reporting prone positioning in mechanically ventilated subjects with ARDS. Of these documents, 22 (18.2%) were only used to look for relevant citations, and 58 (47.9%) were not selected due to the lack of AE reporting. Finally, 41 documents were selected for this review, including 28 original studies and 13 recommendation documents (Fig. 1). Of these, 39 (95.1%) were written in English and 2 (4.9%) in Spanish. An overview of the document characteristics is presented in Table 1. Remarkably, 19 (46.3%) were published in 2020, and 15 (36.6%) were focused on COVID-19-related ARDS. A summary of the main characteristics of each individual document included in this study is presented in Supplementary Material Table S2 (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Flow chart.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Overview of Included Documents Reporting Adverse Events Related to Prone Positioning in Subjects With ARDS

Adverse Events Related to Prone Positioning

Nine domain groups of AEs were identified in the original studies (number of studies [percentage]): pressure sores or skin injuries (13 [46.4%]), invasive devices (11 [39.3%]), respiratory system (9 [32.1%]), cardiovascular system (7 [25.0%]), musculoskeletal system (6 [21.4%]), visual system (5 [17.9%]), gastrointestinal system (4 [14.3%]), nervous system (2 [7.1%]), and others (4 [14.3%]). We identified AEs related to the prone position in 25 studies comprising a total of 1,578 subjects who received prone positioning (Table 2), with a pooled median (IQR) age of 57 y (48–60). With the data from 17 studies, the pooled median (IQR) total duration of the prone position was 2 d (0.9–5.0). We also identified AEs related to the prone positioning maneuver in 6 studies comprising 994 prone positioning maneuvers (Table 3). The highest-pooled proportions of AE occurrence were severe desaturation (37.9%), barotrauma (30.5%), pressure sores (29.7%), ventilation-associated pneumonia (28.2%), facial edema (16.7%), and arrhythmia or bradycardia (15.4%). Only 3 studies compared AE occurrence between the supine and prone groups (Supplementary Material Table S3, see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Among the original studies, 15 (53.6%) reported a total of 14 AE detection methods (Supplementary Material Table S4, see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). In addition, we identified only 4 AEs in the case reports: meralgia paresthetica,38,39 intraocular pressure increase,40 optic neuropathy,41 and lower cranial nerve paralysis.42

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Adverse Events Related to Prone Positioning in Subjects With ARDS

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Adverse Events Related to the Positioning Change Maneuver in Subjects With ARDS

Mitigation Strategies for Adverse Events Related to Prone Positioning

Combining data from the original studies and recommendation documents, Table 4 presents literature-based matching between AEs related to prone positioning and the identified mitigation strategies. The most frequently reported mitigation strategies for managing subjects in the prone position were as follows: alternate face rotation (18 [43.9%]), repositioning every 2 h (17 [41.5%]), the use of pillows under the chest and pelvis (14 [34.1%]), one upper limb abducted next to the head (11 [26.8%]), the use of a facial or head padding (11 [26.8%]), the use of protective measures for eyes (11 [26.8%]), placing the subject in a swimming position (10 [24.4%]), placing the subject in the reverse Trendelenburg position (10 [24.4%]), and free abdomen to minimize abdominal pressure (10 [24.4%]) (Table 5). Unexpectedly, no original study or recommendation document reported early mobilization (ie, neuromuscular electrical stimulation or passive mobilization) as a mitigation strategy for prone positioning of mechanically ventilated subjects. The manual prone positioning maneuver was the most common maneuver, reported in 14 (34.1%) documents. The most frequently reported mitigation strategies for performing the prone maneuver were one person being at the head of the subject (23 [56.1%]), the use of a pre-maneuver safety checklist (18 [43.9%]), vital sign monitoring (15 [36.6%]), ensuring appropriate ventilator settings (12 [29.3%]), rotation opposite to the catheter side (10 [24.4%]), pre-oxygenation with 100% O2 (10 [24.4%]), and interruption of enteral nutrition (10 [24.4%]) (Table 6). The overall median (min-max) number of staff members involved in the prone positioning maneuver was 5 (3–8) in the original studies and 5 (3–7) in the recommendations, mainly including physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists. Additionally, the training of staff members involved in the management of subjects placed in the prone position was reported in only 11 (39.3%) original studies and was suggested by 8 (61.5%) recommendation documents.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Literature-Based Matching Between Adverse Events Related to Prone Positioning and Identified Mitigation Strategies

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5.

Mitigation Strategies to Manage Subjects While in the Prone Position

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 6.

Mitigation Strategies to Perform the Prone Positioning Maneuver

Discussion

We identified > 40 individual AEs within 9 domains from the original studies, despite almost half of the eligible studies not reporting any AEs. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to specifically and comprehensively collect AEs related to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated subjects with ARDS. We identified studies reporting AEs according to the number of subjects placed in the prone position (no. = 25) and the number of prone maneuvers (no. = 6). Moreover, from the original studies and recommendation data, we identified > 30 strategies to mitigate AEs during the prone position and almost 20 strategies to perform the prone positioning maneuver.

Our findings can be contrasted with previous systematic reviews that, as a secondary aim, have also reported the occurrence of AEs in subjects placed in the prone position.23-26 Considering the AEs reported by systematic reviews, the reported data up to the publication of the PROSEVA trial, and our scoping review, the pooled proportions were similar in terms of pressure sores, ventilator-associated pneumonia, cardiac arrest, pneumothorax, arrhythmia, airway obstruction, unplanned extubation, removal of venous or arterial lines, and endotracheal tube displacement (Supplementary Material Table S5,see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Remarkably, we identified similar overall values, showing a lower proportion of AEs in our scoping review, except for ventilator-associated pneumonia and arrhythmia, which were slightly higher.

Owing to the wide coverage of scoping reviews, we identified additional AEs from nonrandomized controlled trials and compared the data with preceding randomized controlled trials.23-26 From single studies, we identified back pain,43 barotrauma,44 vomit,45 hemoptysis,10 and bleeding45 as AEs. Additionally, we found relevant AEs reported in at least 2 original studies that were not informed by previous reviews.23,24 For instance, pressure sores were reported by severity grade in 2 studies,17,46 highlighting grades I and II (with redness and blisters) as the most prevalent (8.3% and 9.8%, respectively) and showing fewer grades in subjects who received suitable nutritional intake.46 Severe desaturation was reported in 3.4% of all prone positioning maneuvers47,48 and in 37.9% of subjects while in the prone position.10,49,50 In the PROSEVA trial, 65.4% of subjects presented with severe desaturation (pulse oximetry saturation < 8 5%) during prone positioning compared to 71.6% in the supine group.10 We believe that the proportion of AEs that occurred during the maneuver should be calculated separately from those that occurred while the subjects were in the prone position. Remarkably, acquired peripheral nerve injury associated with the use of prone positioning has been rarely reported and is likely undervalued. However, in 2 recent reports,51,52 it was surprising that 13.1%–14.5% of subjects with COVID-19 had peripheral nerve injury after prone positioning, including injuries to the brachial plexus, ulnar, radial, sciatic, and median nerves. In our review, only 4 studies reported a pooled proportion of any peripheral nerve injury (8.1%),43,49,52,53 which could indicate an underestimation in other studies.

We found relevant mitigation strategies for AEs related to body position in subjects placed in the prone position. The swimming position was reported in 7 (53.8%) recommendations but was performed in only 3 (10.7%) original studies, whereas the complete prone positioning (180°) was mentioned in only one recommendation but was performed in 7 (25.0%) studies. Although the PROSEVA trial used complete prone positioning with arms placed alongside the body, we also observed a trend in the recommendation of the swimming position; however, there is heterogeneity in its description, with the majority of documents describing it as placing the face toward the abducted and flexed arm,29,30,54 whereas others describing it as placing the face toward the straight arm.55 Currently, there is no completely safe and suitable positioning of the body that will ensure the minimization of nerve injury in every patient, but some authors promote an understanding of the principles of a safe position and encourage the maintenance of a high clinical suspicion of potential brachial plexus injury during the prone position, especially for unconscious and paralyzed patients.54 To reduce the risk and impact of brachial plexus injury, some guidelines recommend the swimming position, avoiding excessive rotation, neck extension, shoulder extension or subluxation, arm abduction beyond 70° with elbow extension, and external rotation of the shoulder beyond 60°.54 Regarding the application of thoraco-pelvic supports (pillows under the chest and pelvis), 7 (25.0%) studies and 7 (53.8%) recommendations reported minimizing the intra-abdominal pressure. Controversially, Chiumello et al56 demonstrated that these supports decrease chest wall compliance, increase pleural pressure, and slightly deteriorate hemodynamics without any advantage in gas exchange, along with a higher likelihood of pressure sores. Regardless of the main position of the entire body, the reverse Trendelenburg57 position has been reported as a recommended strategy to mitigate face pressure sores, ventilator-associated pneumonia, facial edema, eye injuries, lower cranial nerve paralysis, vomiting, transient increase in intracranial pressure, and severe desaturation (Table 4) and is even better if combined with alternating face rotation and repositioning every 2 h. Despite the well-known safety and benefits of passive mobilization and neuromuscular electrical stimulation in sedated subjects,58-61 no study has reported early mobilization as a mitigation strategy, which is likely vital to minimize nerve injuries and ICU-acquired weakness after prone positioning.

AEs related to prone maneuvers can be mitigated by following at least 20 strategies identified in our scoping review, including using a pre-maneuver safety checklist, monitoring vital signs, ensuring appropriate ventilator settings, and having a leader (physician or respiratory therapist) at the head of the subject, which have also been previously reported.30 The number of staff members is also important, as it influences the occurrence of AEs during the maneuver.30 The median number identified was 5 staff members, but this number depends on each team’s experience level and the subject type. For those with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or morbid obesity requiring prone positioning, the number of members reported ranged from 4–847,62 and 5–6,45 respectively.

Although preceding meta-analyses support the significant reduction in overall mortality of subjects with ARDS treated with prone positioning,23-26 the risk of AEs should be carefully considered during the decision-making process, especially in ICUs with less experience.23,27 Whereas most AEs can be severe but immediately corrected, others may be less prevalent but may require long-term care. In this scoping review, several mitigation strategies related to maintaining safe body positions were collected, emphasizing the prevention of AEs originating from incorrect body and limb positions that could be maintained over time. Future clinical trials should incorporate the screening of long-term AEs, which we believe are still underestimated, as well as peripheral nerve and eye injuries, which could be determinants of the quality of life of survivors. In addition, future studies should report the presence and absence of AEs in both the prone and supine groups to minimize design-related bias.

This review is not exempted from limitations. The findings of this scoping review cannot be generalized beyond subjects with ARDS treated in the ICU with prone positioning. Due to the emerging need to obtain recent information on prone positioning, we did not include documents published before 2013. However, we captured useful data on AEs that became available after the landmark PROSEVA trial. We did not identify new randomized or controlled clinical trials reporting AEs related to prone positioning between 2013 and 2020, limiting the comparison of AE occurrence between the prone and supine groups. Due to the observational nature of the original studies included, the causality of AE occurrence likewise cannot be confirmed. Moreover, additional confounding and mediator factors could explain an AE,63 and the prone position itself could be a mediator of the greater severity experienced by a patient presenting with an event. Finally, no cause-effect analysis had been performed between the mitigation strategies and the occurrence of AEs, nor did we explore the relationships between the length of prone positioning sessions and AEs. However, the findings of our review could serve as precursors for future studies.

Conclusions

Several AEs related to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated subjects with ARDS were identified, involving additional AEs not yet reported by previous systematic reviews. The pooled AE proportions reported in this scoping review might guide research and clinical practice decisions, especially for ICU teams with little to no experience in the management of patients who need prone positioning. The strategies for mitigating AEs that have been collected in this scoping review could promote future consensus-based recommendations.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Felipe González-Seguel PT MSc, Servicio de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación and Departamento de Paciente Crítico, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Av. Plaza 680, Santiago, Chile. E-mail: feligonzalezs{at}udd.cl
  • This study was performed under the Master Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, School of Physical Therapy, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.

  • The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

  • Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Franca SA,
    2. Toufen C,
    3. Hovnanian ALD,
    4. Albuquerque ALP,
    5. Borges ER,
    6. Pizzo VRP,
    7. Carvalho CRR
    . The epidemiology of acute respiratory failure in hospitalized patients: A Brazilian prospective cohort study. J Crit Care 2011;26(3):330.e1-330-e8.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.
    1. Stefan MS,
    2. Shieh M-S,
    3. Pekow PS,
    4. Rothberg MB,
    5. Steingrub JS,
    6. Lagu T,
    7. Lindenauer PK
    . Epidemiology and outcomes of acute respiratory failure in the United States, 2001 to 2009: a national survey. J Hosp Med 2013;8(2):76-82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Brun-Buisson C,
    2. Minelli C,
    3. Bertolini G,
    4. Brazzi L,
    5. Pimentel J,
    6. Lewandowski K,
    7. et al
    ; ALIVE Study Group. Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units. Results from the ALIVE study. Intensive Care Med 2004;30(1):51-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Herridge MS,
    2. Tansey CM,
    3. Matté A,
    4. Tomlinson G,
    5. Diaz-Granados N,
    6. Cooper A,
    7. et al
    ; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2011;364(14):1293-1304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nelliot A,
    2. Dinglas VD,
    3. O'Toole J,
    4. Patel Y,
    5. Mendez-Tellez PA,
    6. Nabeel M,
    7. et al
    . Acute respiratory failure survivors’ physical, cognitive, and mental health outcomes: quantitative measures versus semistructured interviews. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019;16(6):731-737.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Network ARDS,
    2. Brower RG,
    3. Matthay MA,
    4. Morris A,
    5. Schoenfeld D,
    6. Thompson BT,
    7. Wheeler A
    . Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342(18):1301-1308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Combes A,
    2. Peek GJ,
    3. Hajage D,
    4. Hardy P,
    5. Abrams D,
    6. Schmidt M,
    7. et al
    . ECMO for severe ARDS: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2020;46(11):2048-2057.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Papazian L,
    2. Forel J-M,
    3. Gacouin A,
    4. Penot-Ragon C,
    5. Perrin G,
    6. Loundou A,
    7. et al
    ; ACURASYS Study Investigators. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2010;363(12):1107-1116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Scales DC,
    3. Kavanagh BP
    . Unproven and expensive before proven and cheap: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197(8):991-993.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Reignier J,
    3. Richard JC,
    4. Beuret P,
    5. Gacouin A,
    6. Boulain T,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2013;368(23):2159-2168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Fan E,
    2. Del Sorbo L,
    3. Goligher EC,
    4. Hodgson CL,
    5. Munshi L,
    6. Walkey AJ,
    7. et al.
    American Thoracic Society, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care Medicine. An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195(9):1253-1263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Chiumello D,
    2. Brochard L,
    3. Marini JJ,
    4. Slutsky AS,
    5. Mancebo J,
    6. Ranieri VM,
    7. et al
    . Respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an expert opinion. Crit Care 2017;21(1):240.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.
    1. Phua J,
    2. Weng L,
    3. Ling L,
    4. Egi M,
    5. Lim C-M,
    6. Divatia JV,
    7. et al
    ; Asian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group. Intensive care management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): challenges and recommendations. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(5):506-517.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Alhazzani W,
    2. Møller MH,
    3. Arabi YM,
    4. Loeb M,
    5. Gong MN,
    6. Fan E,
    7. et al
    . Surviving sepsis campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med 2020;46(5):854-887.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance, January 28, 2020. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330893 Accessed October 26, 2020.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Marini JJ,
    2. Josephs SA,
    3. Mechlin M,
    4. Hurford WE
    . Should early prone positioning be a standard of care in ARDS with refractory hypoxemia? Respir Care 2016;61(6):818-829.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lucchini A,
    2. Bambi S,
    3. Mattiussi E,
    4. Elli S,
    5. Villa L,
    6. Bondi H,
    7. et al
    . Prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2020;39(1):39-46.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Gaillard S,
    3. Lemasson S,
    4. Ayzac L,
    5. Girard R,
    6. Beuret P,
    7. et al
    . Effects of systematic prone positioning in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. JAMA 2004;292(19):2379-2387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    1. Mancebo J,
    2. Fernández R,
    3. Blanch L,
    4. Rialp G,
    5. Gordo F,
    6. Ferrer M,
    7. et al
    . A multi-center trial of prolonged prone ventilation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;173(11):1233-1239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. McCormick J,
    2. Blackwood B
    . Nursing the ARDS patient in the prone position: the experience of qualified ICU nurses. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2001;17(6):331-340.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kallet RH
    . A comprehensive review of prone position in ARDS. Respir Care 2015;60(11):1660-1687.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Touchon F,
    2. Trigui Y,
    3. Prud’homme E,
    4. Lefebvre L,
    5. Giraud A,
    6. Dols A-M,
    7. et al
    . Awake prone positioning for hypoxemic respiratory failure: past, COVID-19 and perspectives. Eur Respir Rev 2021;30(160):210022.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lee JM,
    2. Bae W,
    3. Lee YJ,
    4. Cho Y-J
    . The efficacy and safety of prone positional ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2014;42(5):1252-1262.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Park SY,
    2. Kim HJ,
    3. Yoo KH,
    4. Park YB,
    5. Kim SW,
    6. Lee SJ,
    7. et al
    . The efficacy and safety of prone positioning in adults patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Dis 2015;7(3):356-367.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.
    1. Mora-Arteaga JA,
    2. Bernal-Ramírez OJ,
    3. Rodríguez SJ
    . Efecto de la ventilación mecánica en posición prona en pacientes con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda. Una revisión sistemática y metanálisis. Med Intensiva 2015;39(6):352-365.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Bloomfield R,
    2. Noble DW,
    3. Sudlow A
    . Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(11):CD008095.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Albert RK,
    3. Beitler J,
    4. Gattinoni L,
    5. Jaber S,
    6. Marini JJ,
    7. et al
    . Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how, and for whom. Intensive Care Med 2020;46(12):2385-2396.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Klaiman T,
    2. Silvestri JA,
    3. Srinivasan T,
    4. Szymanski S,
    5. Tran T,
    6. Oredeko F,
    7. et al
    . Improving prone positioning for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic. an implementation-mapping approach. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021;18(2):300-307.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Oliveira VM,
    2. Piekala DM,
    3. Deponti GN,
    4. Batista DCR,
    5. Minossi SD,
    6. Chisté M,
    7. et al
    . Safe prone checklist: construction and implementation of a tool for performing the prone maneuver. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2017;29(2):131-141.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Parhar KKS,
    2. Zuege DJ,
    3. Shariff K,
    4. Knight G,
    5. Bagshaw SM
    . Prone positioning for ARDS patients-tips for preparation and use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Anaesth 2021;68(4):541-545.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Oliveira VM,
    2. Weschenfelder ME,
    3. Deponti G,
    4. Condessa R,
    5. Loss SH,
    6. Bairros PM,
    7. et al
    . Good practices for prone positioning at the bedside: construction of a care protocol. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2016;62(3):287-293.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Munshi L,
    2. Del Sorbo L,
    3. Adhikari NKJ,
    4. Hodgson CL,
    5. Wunsch H,
    6. Meade MO,
    7. et al
    . Prone position for acute respiratory distress syndrome. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017;14(Supplement_4):S280-S288.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Munn Z,
    2. Peters MDJ,
    3. Stern C,
    4. Tufanaru C,
    5. McArthur A,
    6. Aromataris E
    . Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18(1):143.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Peters MDJ,
    2. Godfrey CM,
    3. Khalil H,
    4. McInerney P,
    5. Parker D,
    6. Soares CB
    . Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13(3):141-146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Arksey H,
    2. O'Malley L
    . Scoping studies: toward a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8(1):19-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Tricco AC,
    2. Lillie E,
    3. Zarin W,
    4. O'Brien KK,
    5. Colquhoun H,
    6. Levac D,
    7. et al
    . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-473.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Thomson R,
    2. Lewalle P,
    3. Sherman H,
    4. Hibbert P,
    5. Runciman W,
    6. Castro G
    . Toward an international classification for patient safety: a Delphi survey. Int J Qual Health Care 2009;21(1):9-17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Bellinghausen AL,
    2. LaBuzetta JN,
    3. Chu F,
    4. Novelli F,
    5. Rodelo AR,
    6. Owens RL
    . Lessons from an ICU recovery clinic: 2 cases of meralgia paresthetica after prone positioning to treat COVID-19–associated ARDS and modification of unit practices. Crit Care 2020;24(1):580.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Juhl CS,
    2. Ballegaard M,
    3. Bestle MH,
    4. Tfelt-Hansen P
    . Meralgia paresthetica after prone positioning ventilation in the intensive care unit. Case Rep Crit Care 2016;2016:7263201-7263203.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Saran S,
    2. Gurjar M,
    3. Kanaujia V,
    4. Ghosh PS,
    5. Gupta A,
    6. Mishra P,
    7. et al
    . Effect of prone positioning on intraocular pressure in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2019;47(9):E761-E766.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Panchabhai TS,
    2. Bandyopadhyay D,
    3. Kapoor A,
    4. Akindipe O,
    5. Lane C,
    6. Krishnan S
    . Acute ischemic optic neuropathy with extended prone position ventilation in a lung transplant recipient. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2016;6(1):45-47.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Trejo-Gabriel-Galan JM,
    2. Perea-Rodriguez ME,
    3. Aicua-Rapun I,
    4. Martinez-Barrio E
    . Lower cranial nerves paralysis following prone-position mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2017;45(8):e865-e866.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Sahoo J,
    2. Gurjar M,
    3. Mohanty K,
    4. Majhi K,
    5. Sradhanjali G
    . Prone ventilation in H1N1 virus–associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a case series. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2019;9(4):182-186.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Sun Q,
    3. Yu Y,
    4. Liang W,
    5. Liu X,
    6. Yang C,
    7. et al
    . Prone position ventilation support for acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease? Clin Respir J 2018;12(4):1372-1380.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. De Jong A,
    2. Molinari N,
    3. Sebbane M,
    4. Prades A,
    5. Futier E,
    6. Jung B,
    7. et al
    . Feasibility and effectiveness of prone position in morbidly obese patients with ARDS. Chest 2013;143(6):1554-1561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Jové Ponseti E,
    2. Villarrasa Millán A,
    3. Ortiz Chinchilla D
    . Análisis de las complicaciones del decúbito prono en el síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo: estándar de calidad, incidencia y factores relacionados. Enferm Intensiva 2017;28(3):125-134.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Kipping V,
    2. Weber-Carstens S,
    3. Lojewski C,
    4. Feldmann P,
    5. Rydlewski A,
    6. Boemke W,
    7. et al
    . Prone position during ECMO is safe and improves oxygenation. Int J Artif Organs 2013;36(11):821-832.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Kimmoun A,
    2. Levy B,
    3. Chenuel B,
    4. Barde S,
    5. Didelot A,
    6. Chenuel B,
    7. et al
    ; DV-Team group. Usefulness and safety of a dedicated team to prone patients with severe ARDS due to COVID-19. Crit Care 2020;24(1):509-504.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. Short B,
    2. Parekh M,
    3. Ryan P,
    4. Chiu M,
    5. Fine C,
    6. Scala P,
    7. et al
    . Rapid implementation of a mobile prone team during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Crit Care 2020;60:230-234.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Beuret P,
    3. Constantin JM,
    4. Bellani G,
    5. Garcia-Olivares P,
    6. Roca O,
    7. et al
    ; investigators of the APRONET Study Group, the REVA Network, the Réseau recherche de la Société Française d’Anesthésie-Réanimation (SFAR-recherche), and the ESICM Trials Group. A prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS prone position network) study. Intensive Care Med 2018;44(1):22-37.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    1. Miller C,
    2. O’Sullivan J,
    3. Jeffrey J,
    4. Power D
    . Brachial plexus neuropathies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective case series of 15 patients in critical care. Phys Ther 2021;101(1):pzaa191.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. Malik GR,
    2. Wolfe AR,
    3. Soriano R,
    4. Rydberg L,
    5. Wolfe LF,
    6. Deshmukh S,
    7. et al
    . Injury-prone: peripheral nerve injuries associated with prone positioning for COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Br J Anaesth 2020;125(6):e478-e480.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Le MQ,
    2. Rosales R,
    3. Shapiro LT,
    4. Huang LY
    . The downside of prone positioning. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020;99(10):870-872.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Simpson AI,
    2. Vaghela KR,
    3. Brown H,
    4. Adams K,
    5. Sinisi M,
    6. Fox M,
    7. Quick T
    . Reducing the risk and impact of brachial plexus injury sustained from prone positioning-a clinical commentary. J Intensive Care Med 2020;35(12):1576-1582.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Ibarra G,
    2. Rivera A,
    3. Fernandez-Ibarburu B,
    4. Lorca-García C,
    5. Garcia-Ruano A
    . Prone position pressure sores in the COVID-19 pandemic: the Madrid experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2020(20):30732-30734. [S1748-6815]
  56. 56.↵
    1. Chiumello D,
    2. Cressoni M,
    3. Racagni M,
    4. Landi L,
    5. Li Bassi G,
    6. Polli F,
    7. et al
    . Effects of thoraco-pelvic supports during prone position in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome: a physiological study. Crit Care 2006;10(3):R87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Bein T,
    2. Bischoff M,
    3. Brückner U,
    4. Gebhardt K,
    5. Henzler D,
    6. Hermes C,
    7. et al
    . S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilization in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders. Anaesthesist 2015;64 Suppl 1(S1):1-26.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Camargo Pires-Neto R,
    2. Fogaça Kawaguchi YM,
    3. Sayuri Hirota A,
    4. Fu C,
    5. Tanaka C,
    6. Caruso P,
    7. et al
    . Very early passive cycling exercise in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: physiological and safety aspects-a case series. PLoS One 2013;8(9):e74182.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.
    1. Hickmann CE,
    2. Castanares-Zapatero D,
    3. Deldicque L,
    4. Van den Bergh P,
    5. Caty G,
    6. Robert A,
    7. et al
    . Impact of very early physical therapy during septic shock on skeletal muscle. Crit Care Med 2018;46(9):1436-1443.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.
    1. Medrinal C,
    2. Combret Y,
    3. Prieur G,
    4. Robledo Quesada A,
    5. Bonnevie T,
    6. Gravier FE,
    7. et al
    . Comparison of exercise intensity during four early rehabilitation techniques in sedated and ventilated patients in ICU: a randomized crossover trial. Crit Care 2018;22(1):110.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Gutiérrez-Arias RE,
    2. Zapata-Quiroz CC,
    3. Prenafeta-Pedemonte BO,
    4. Nasar-Lillo NA,
    5. Gallardo-Zamorano DI
    . Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Respir Care 2021;66(4):679-685.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Kimmoun A,
    2. Roche S,
    3. Bridey C,
    4. Vanhuyse F,
    5. Fay R,
    6. Girerd N,
    7. et al
    . Prolonged prone positioning under VV-ECMO is safe and improves oxygenation and respiratory compliance. Ann Intensive Care 2015;5(1):35.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. Lederer DJ,
    2. Bell SC,
    3. Branson RD,
    4. Chalmers JD,
    5. Marshall R,
    6. Maslove DM,
    7. et al
    . Control of confounding and reporting of results in causal inference studies. Guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019;16(1):22-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    1. Shelhamer MC,
    2. Wesson PD,
    3. Solari IL,
    4. Jensen DL,
    5. Steele WA,
    6. Dimitrov VG,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19: a cohort study and analysis of physiology. J Intensive Care Med 2021;36(2):241-252.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.
    1. Ayzac L,
    2. Girard R,
    3. Baboi L,
    4. Beuret P,
    5. Rabilloud M,
    6. Richard JC,
    7. et al
    . Ventilator-associated pneumonia in ARDS patients: the impact of prone positioning. A secondary analysis of the PROSEVA trial. Intensive Care Med 2016;42(5):871-878.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    1. Girard R,
    2. Baboi L,
    3. Ayzac L,
    4. Richard J-C,
    5. Guérin C
    . The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning. Intensive Care Med 2014;40(3):397-403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    1. Sleiwah A,
    2. Nair G,
    3. Mughal M,
    4. Lancaster K,
    5. Ahmad I
    . Perioral pressure ulcers in patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Eur J Plast Surg 2020;43(6):727-732.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (12)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 12
1 Dec 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Adverse Events of Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With ARDS
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Adverse Events of Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With ARDS
Felipe González-Seguel, Juan José Pinto-Concha, Nadine Aranis, Jaime Leppe
Respiratory Care Dec 2021, 66 (12) 1898-1911; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.09194

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Adverse Events of Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated Adults With ARDS
Felipe González-Seguel, Juan José Pinto-Concha, Nadine Aranis, Jaime Leppe
Respiratory Care Dec 2021, 66 (12) 1898-1911; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.09194
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Review of the Literature
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • prone position
  • mechanical ventilation
  • ARDS
  • respiratory failure
  • adverse events
  • complications

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire