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
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Prone Positioning in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects With Moderate or Severe ARDS During Invasive Ventilation

Adil Wiart, Diego Castanares-Zapatero, Xavier Wittebole, Guillaume Maerckx, Guillaume David, Pierre-François Laterre and Ludovic Gerard
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 724-732; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08461
Adil Wiart
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diego Castanares-Zapatero
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xavier Wittebole
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guillaume Maerckx
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guillaume David
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pierre-François Laterre
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ludovic Gerard
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) during invasive mechanical ventilation improves outcomes of patients with severe ARDS. Recent studies suggest that PP in spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with acute respiratory failure is well tolerated and improves oxygenation. However, little is known regarding patient triggered ventilation in intubated patients with ARDS undergoing PP. We conducted a retrospective review of our experience with placing patients in the prone position in 2 cohorts of subjects with moderate and severe ARDS (ie, one cohort with ARDS related to COVID-19, the other with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19), many of whom were receiving pressure support ventilation (PSV).

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis in a single 22-bed mixed ICU. The subjects included in the analysis were ≥ 18 y old, met the Berlin definition for moderate or severe ARDS (whether related COVID-19 or not), and underwent PP during invasive ventilation.

RESULTS: 39 subjects were included in the analysis: 20 subjects had ARDS related to COVID-19, while 19 had ARDS related to other etiologies. A total of 113 PP episodes were analyzed: 84 during PSV and 29 during volume control continuous mandatory ventilation. PP during PSV was well tolerated and was effective in improving arterial oxygenation (ie, an increase of median Embedded Image from 100 mm Hg [interquartile range 75–120] before PP to 135 mm Hg [interquartile range 111–161] at the end of the PP session, P < .0001). No significant difference between continuous mandatory ventilation and PSV was noted regarding arterial oxygenation during PP. Compared with continuous mandatory ventilation mode, PP during PSV was associated with a significant decrease in the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (4% vs 69% of subjects, P < .001), while sedative requirements remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of consecutive intubated subjects with moderate or severe ARDS, related or not to COVID-19, spontaneous breathing during PP was well tolerated and achieved significant improvement in arterial oxygenation.

  • ARDS
  • COVID-19
  • SARS-CoV2
  • prone positioning
  • spontaneous breathing
  • pressure support ventilation

Introduction

ARDS is common in critically ill patients, and it is associated with high mortality and morbidity.1 Prone positioning (PP) during invasive mechanical ventilation has been shown to improve oxygenation and to decrease mortality of the most severe cases of ARDS.2 Therefore, prone positioning for > 12 h/d is recommended in patients with severe ARDS.3 Although the benefits of prone positioning are well established, the ideal ventilatory management of patients with moderate and severe ARDS is less well defined. In particular, the benefits and risks of spontaneous breathing in patients with ARDS are debated. Experimental evidence is conflicting, and no clinical trial to date has compared assisted with volume control controlled mechanical ventilation.

Several studies, mainly retrospective, have suggested that prone positioning is safe and could improve oxygenation in spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with respiratory failure of various origins, some of them fulfilling ARDS criteria,4–6 and, recently, in subjects with severe hypoxemia due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).7–9 However, none of the clinical studies that focused on the effects of prone positioning during invasive mechanical ventilation were conducted in subjects under a patient triggered ventilation mode. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, tolerance, and effects on oxygenation of prone positioning during moderate to severe ARDS, related to COVID-19 or not, in patients receiving pressure support ventilation (PSV). In our group, we tend to favor spontaneous breathing whenever possible in mechanically ventilated patients as part of a global strategy to decrease sedation requirements, promote early mobilization, and prevent muscular atrophy, including diaphragm dysfunction.10–13 In this regard, we try to maintain spontaneous breathing, most often in the PSV mode, while patients with moderate or severe ARDS undergo prone positioning. We conducted a retrospective review of our experience with placing 2 clinical series of subjects with moderate and severe ARDS in the prone position, many of whom were receiving PSV.

Quick look

Current Knowledge

Prone positioning during invasive ventilation improves outcomes of patients with severe ARDS. Recent studies suggest that prone positioning in spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with acute respiratory failure is well tolerated and improves oxygenation. No study has been conducted in spontaneously breathing, intubated patients, undergoing prone positioning for ARDS.

What This Paper Contributes to Our Knowledge

This retrospective analysis of consecutive subjects with moderate or severe ARDS, regardless of etiology, indicates that prone positioning during pressure support ventilation was well tolerated and effective in improving oxygenation.

Methods

The ethics committee at Comité d'Ethique Hospitalo-Facultaire, Saint-Luc (N°2019/16JAN/022 and N°2020/27AVR/247) approved the reporting of our study results. The need for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the analysis.

Subjects

We reviewed medical files for patients admitted from July 2012 to March 2018 in a 22-bed tertiary care mixed ICU to identify subjects for possible inclusion in this study. We searched for patients with a discharge diagnosis code of 518.50 (acute respiratory distress syndrome) and/or A03.5 (ARDS) according to the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9). The inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 y at the time of diagnosis, findings consistent with the Berlin ARDS definition of moderate or severe ARDS,14 and prone positioning for > 12 h during the first 72 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. All consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria were included in the first cohort. A second cohort included all consecutive patients invasively ventilated for ARDS related to COVID-19 who underwent at least one session of prone positioning (for > 12 h) between March 15, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Data Collection

Data were retrieved from the electronic medical record. Demographic data, underlying conditions, adjuvant therapies, and cause of ARDS were recorded. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were calculated on the day of ARDS diagnosis. For all subjects, the first 4 sessions of prone positioning following initiation of mechanical ventilation were carefully considered. For each PP session, the occurrence of adverse events, respiratory and hemodynamic parameters (including vasoactive drugs use and dosing), and sedation-related variables (ie, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale, and the use and average dose of sedative drugs) were recorded. The following were considered adverse events: cardiac arrest, unplanned extubation, and main bronchus intubation due to endotracheal tube displacement. Hemodynamic instability was defined as bradycardia (< 30 beats/min for > 1 min), a decrease of mean arterial pressure of ≥ 20 mm Hg, or an increase of norepinephrine dose of 0.1 μg/kg/min in the 15 min following turning to prone position. We assessed each variable retrieved from the electronic medical record at 4 time points: immediately before PP, at the beginning of PP (first available values 1 h after initiation of PP for respiratory variables and values 15 min after initiation of PP for hemodynamic variables), at the end of PP (last value before turning back to supine position), and after PP (first available values > 1 h after turning back to supine position). For each session of PP, the duration of spontaneous breathing under PSV was recorded. When the duration of PSV exceeded 50% of the total duration of PP, the PP session was recorded in the PSV group; otherwise the session was recorded in the volume control continuous mandatory ventilation (VC-CMV) group. Subjects were followed until hospital discharge, and outcomes were recorded at 28 d and at ICU discharge. The detailed protocol used for prone positioning can be found in the supplementary materials (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21 (IBM, Armonk, New York), with graphs drawn using Graphpad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, California). Values were expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]) or mean ± SD for continuous values and count (percentage) for qualitative variables. The data were subjected to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test and the Bartlett test for homogeneity of variance. We compared outcome and demographic variables, sedation, and adverse events between subject groups with the chi-square test (or Fisher exact test when appropriate) and the unpaired t test (or the Mann-Whitney test according to statistical distribution) for quantitative data. Furthermore, we compared the evolution of respiratory and hemodynamic parameters during PP sessions within each group using the paired t test (or Wilcoxon rank-sum test according to statistical distribution). All tests were 2-sided, with significance level set at .05.

Results

From July 2012 to March 2018, 107 subjects were admitted to the ICU with moderate or severe ARDS and underwent mechanical ventilation for ≥ 72 h. Thirty-eight subjects underwent PP, but full data (mainly regarding sedation and hemodynamic parameters) were available in only 19 subjects; these subjects were included in the first cohort (Fig. 1). From March 15 to April 15, 2020, 52 patients with severe COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU. Among them, 23 underwent invasive ventilation and 20 underwent ≥ 12 h of PP. Full data were available for all subjects who were included in the second cohort. The baseline characteristics, cause of ARDS, and main outcome data for 39 subjects with mild and moderate ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and underwent prone positioning for ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (first cohort) or for ARDS related to COVID-19 (second cohort) are summarized in Table 1. The median age of the cohort was 59 y. Subjects undergoing PP for ARDS related to COVID-19 were more likely to be male (65% vs 37%, P = .07) and had lower APACHE II scores (11 [IQR 9–21] vs 25 [IQR 18–28], P = .001) and lower SOFA score (5 [IQR 4–9] vs 9 [IQR 5–12], P = .01). The 28-d and ICU mortality rates were 31% and 42% in the whole cohort, respectively, with no difference between subjects with ARDS related or unrelated to COVID-19. There were 113 sessions of PP, with more PP sessions in PSV (84) than in VC-CMV (29). Thirty-four subjects (87%) experienced ≥ 1 session of PP under PSV. Subjects with COVID-19 had significantly more PP sessions (4 vs 2, P = .02) and were less likely to have PP during PSV (66% vs 87% of PP sessions, P = .01).

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.

Baseline Characteristics, Respiratory Parameters, and Outcomes

Baseline characteristics and outcomes of subjects classified into a full PSV group (ie, all PP sessions during PSV, n = 25), a full control group (ie, all PP sessions during VC-CMV, n = 5), or in a combination group (ie, PP sessions during either PSV or VC-CMV, n = 9) are shown in the supplementary materials (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

As shown in Table 2, PP duration was significantly shorter in the PSV group (14.6 vs 17 h, P = .02). There was no difference regarding the number of sedative drugs nor the average dose during PP between VC-CMV and PSV. Use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) was more frequent in the VC-CMV group than in the PSV group (69% vs 4% of sessions, P < .001). Four sessions of PP, all in the PSV group, were terminated prematurely due to a severe adverse event (1 cardiac arrest, 2 unplanned extubations, and 1 main bronchus intubation during PP procedure).

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

Comparison Between Sedative Use and Adverse Events With PP in Different Ventilator Modes

The evolution of respiratory parameters before, during, and after prone positioning is shown in Figure 2 and detailed in Table 3. As expected, Embedded Image increased with PP. Other respiratory parameters remained unchanged throughout PP sessions, other than a significant decrease in median breathing frequency from 30 breaths/min (IQR 22–36) to 26 breaths/min (IQR 21–32) in the PSV group (P = .03). The detailed evolution of Embedded Image throughout all 4 PP sessions in the VC-CMV group and the PSV group is provided in the supplementary materials (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Evolution of respiratory parameters * P < .05, ** P < .005, *** P < .0005 throughout prone position sessions in pressure support ventilation and in volume control continuous mandatory ventilation. PSV = pressure support ventilation, VC-CMV = volume control continuous mandatory ventilation, VT = tidal volume, PBW=predicted body weight.

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

Evolution of Respiratory Parameters Before, During, and After Prone Positioning

The evolution of hemodynamic parameters during PP sessions is shown in the supplementary materials (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). We did not find any significant change in mean arterial pressure, heart rate, or norepinephrin dose during PP in either the PSV group or the VC-CMV group.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to focus on PP in the early phase of moderate and severe ARDS, whether related to COVID-19 or not, in subjects spontaneously breathing under invasive mechanical ventilation. In our work, we describe the early application of PP in 39 subjects with moderate to severe ARDS, among whom 34 experienced ≥ 1 session of PP in PSV. A total of 84 PP procedures were performed during PSV and were compared with 29 PP procedures performed during VC-CMV. Our findings indicate that PP during PSV was effective in improving arterial oxygenation, well tolerated, and associated with a significant decrease in NMBA consumption compared with PP during VC-CMV, without change in sedative requirements.

Few interventions have demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with moderate or severe ARDS. Among them, prone positioning is an inexpensive and well-tolerated intervention whose benefits for the outcomes of patients with moderate or severe ARDS have been demonstrated in recent trials.2,15–17 Prone positioning improves oxygenation by optimizing lung recruitment and ventilation-perfusion matching, helps prevent ventilator-induced lung injury by improving the distribution of mechanical forces through the lung, and encourages secretion drainage.18 Despite these recognized benefits, PP is still underused.1,15 A recent prevalence study reported that PP was used in only 33% of subjects with severe ARDS.15 The main reasons given for not using PP in subjects with severe ARDS were the rating of hypoxemia as “not severe enough” and hemodynamic instability.15

In our study, PP was well tolerated, with a rate of severe complications of 3%, lower than previously reported in clinical trials2,17 and comparable to the rate of complications recorded in a recent prevalence study.15 One subject had a cardiac arrest during PP, but it happened > 4 h after being turned to the prone position; the subject ultimately survived. Transient hemodynamic instability at the initiation of PP was frequent (26% of subjects) but limited in duration. In addition, norepinephrine doses remained stable throughout the PP procedures. Our results indicate that, with an experienced team, PP can be safely managed even while patients are spontaneously breathing under mechanical ventilation.

Maintaining PSV during PP procedures led, unsurprisingly, to decreased NMBA use, with no differences regarding sedatives; transient muscular paralysis for turning to the prone position was used for a few subjects, explaining the 4% of PP procedures with NMBA use in the PSV group. The use of NMBA in ARDS is still debated. Whereas the ACURASYS trial reported a decrease in mortality in subjects with severe ARDS treated with cisatracurium for 48 h,19 those results were not replicated in a recent larger trial.20 Moreover, prolonged NMBA use is discouraged21 because of their potential to contribute to sustained neuromuscular weakness,22 ventilator-associated diaphragm dysfunction,23,24 and impaired coughing and secretion clearance. A significant proportion of patients with ARDS, particularly in the case of ARDS related to COVID-19, experience severe hypoxemia for prolonged periods and might benefit from multiple sessions of PP, with potential exposure to the deleterious effects of long-term neuromuscular blockade. Moreover, due to the recent pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), ICUs across the world are faced with a dramatic increase of patients with severe ARDS. In many areas, supplies of critical care medications, including NMBAs, are extremely limited, with expected or effective shortages.25 For those reasons, utilizing PP procedures under PSV without the use of NMBA might prove useful.

Furthermore, we showed that PP performed during PSV was effective in improving arterial oxygenation. The increase of Embedded Image in our cohort was not different between PSV and VC-CMV group. Interestingly, in subjects undergoing PP under PSV, there was a significant decrease in breathing frequency with no change in tidal volume, suggesting a reduced work of breathing.

Beyond the effectiveness of PP to improve oxygenation in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS, the question of the use of spontaneous ventilation in ARDS remains open. Experimental evidence is conflicting and clinical evidence is scarce. Therefore, it is still unknown whether the potential benefits of spontaneous breathing (eg, better patient-ventilator interaction, prevention of diaphragmatic atrophy and atelectasis, better ventilation of dorsal lung units, decreased sedation requirements13,26–28) outpace the harms (eg, higher rate of respiratory asynchronies, increase in transpulmonary pressure and pendelluft phenomenon26,29) in a given patient. Despite this uncertainty, it was reported in a secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database that spontaneous breathing was common in the first 48 h after ARDS diagnosis, with 79% and 21% of subjects exhibiting transient or continuous spontaneous breathing, respectively.30 In an adjusted analysis, spontaneous breathing was not associated with deleterious outcomes.

Our study was not designed or powered to evaluate the effects of spontaneous breathing on outcomes. However, the ICU mortality rates in subjects with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 or with ARDS related to COVID-19 (42% in both cohorts) were similar to those reported in recent large series in which subjects were managed with conventional ventilation strategies.1,31,32

Our results should be interpreted with caution. First, it is a retrospective analysis of a small number of subjects in a single referral center. Second, in our analysis, we pooled subjects with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 and subjects with ARDS from other etiologies, despite the fact that the underlying pathophysiology might be different.33 It has been suggested that only a proportion of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia can be qualified as ARDS because the respiratory system compliance remains initially normal in a large proportion of these patients.33,34 According to this hypothesis, the expected benefits in the 2 subpopulations of subjects with ARDS may be related to different physiopathological phenomena and should be analyzed separately. However, a recent prospective multicenter study reported that patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 have lung morphology and respiratory mechanics that match those of subjects with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19.35 Moreover, we observed comparable results when we analyzed the effects of PP within each of the 2 cohorts. Third, there was an imbalance between subjects in the PSV mode and subjects in the VC-CMV mode, with a large majority in the former. Our habit is to favor spontaneous breathing whenever possible. The use of VC-CMV is usually restricted to asynchronies or poor tolerance during PSV, or to large tidal volumes despite adaptation of ventilator settings. This could constitute a selection bias toward the use of VC-CMV in patients with more severe ARDS. However, Embedded Image was similar between groups. Fourth, in the first cohort, only 35% of all subjects with moderate to severe ARDS underwent PP. One possible explanation for this “underuse” of PP is that a careful optimization of ventilator parameters, combined with adequate sedation, can achieve significant improvement in oxygenation in many subjects and could therefore make PP unnecessary. In our usual practice, we reserve PP for patients who remain severely hypoxemic (Embedded Image < 150 mm Hg) despite adequate ventilator optimization. Moreover, an equally low prevalence of PP among patients with severe ARDS was reported in the APRONET study.15 Lastly, data were missing for many of the patients with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. These patients were not included in the analysis, which constitutes another possible selection bias.

Conclusions

In this retrospective analysis of consecutive subjects with moderate or severe ARDS, whether related to COVID-19 or not, PP during PSV was well tolerated and effective in improving oxygenation. When compared with controlled mechanical ventilation (ie, CMV), PP procedures during PSV were associated with a significant decrease in NMBA consumption, whereas sedative requirements remained unchanged. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare assisted to controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS, particularly those who undergo prone positioning. Moreover, physiologic studies focusing on the effects of spontaneous breathing during prone positioning should help identify patients in whom the benefits of spontaneous breathing are likely to outweigh potential harm.

Acknowledgments

We thank P. Delrez for his assistance in collecting the data used for this work. We thank the ICU physicians and nurses who took care of our patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Ludovic Gerard MD, Université Catholique de Louvain, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. E-mail: ludovic.gerard{at}uclouvain.be
  • Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.

  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Related Editorial on Page 884

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bellani G,
    2. Laffey JG,
    3. Pham T,
    4. Fan E,
    5. Brochard L,
    6. Esteban A,
    7. et al
    . Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA 2016;315(8):788–800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    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
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fan E,
    2. Del Sorbo L,
    3. Goligher EC,
    4. Hodgson CL,
    5. Munshi L,
    6. Walkey AJ,
    7. et al
    . 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
  4. 4.↵
    1. Scaravilli V,
    2. Grasselli G,
    3. Castagna L,
    4. Zanella A,
    5. Isgrò S,
    6. Lucchini A,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a retrospective study. J Crit Care 2015;30(6):1390–1394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Ding L,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Ma W,
    4. He H
    . Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study. Crit Care 2020;24(1):28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Valter C,
    2. Christensen AM,
    3. Tollund C,
    4. Schönemann NK
    . Response to the prone position in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47(4):416–418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Elharrar X,
    2. Trigui Y,
    3. Dols A-M,
    4. Touchon F,
    5. Martinez S,
    6. Prud'homme E,
    7. et al
    . Use of prone positioning in nonintubated patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. JAMA 2020;323(22):2336–2338.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Sartini C,
    2. Tresoldi M,
    3. Scarpellini P,
    4. Tettamanti A,
    5. Carcò F,
    6. Landoni G,
    7. et al
    . Respiratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 after using noninvasive ventilation in the prone position outside the intensive care unit. JAMA 2020;323(22):2338–2340.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Telias I,
    2. Katira BH,
    3. Brochard L
    . Is the prone position helpful during spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19? JAMA 2020;323(22):2265–2267.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hickmann CE,
    2. Castanares-Zapatero D,
    3. Bialais E,
    4. Dugernier J,
    5. Tordeur A,
    6. Colmant L,
    7. et al
    . Teamwork enables high level of early mobilization in critically ill patients. Ann Intensive Care 2016;6(1):80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.
    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: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2018;46(9):1436–1443.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Schweickert WD,
    2. Pohlman MC,
    3. Pohlman AS,
    4. Nigos C,
    5. Pawlik AJ,
    6. Esbrook CL,
    7. et al
    . Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373(9678):1874–1882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Dres M,
    3. Fan E,
    4. Rubenfeld GD,
    5. Scales DC,
    6. Herridge MS,
    7. et al
    . Mechanical ventilation-induced diaphragm atrophy strongly impacts clinical outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197(2):204–213.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Force ADT,
    2. Ranieri VM,
    3. Rubenfeld GD,
    4. Thompson BT,
    5. Ferguson ND,
    6. Caldwell E,
    7. et al
    . Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA 2012;307(23):2526–2533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Beuret P,
    3. Constantin JM,
    4. Bellani G,
    5. Garcia-Olivares P,
    6. Roca O,
    7. et al
    . 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
  16. 16.
    1. Fernandez R,
    2. Trenchs X,
    3. Klamburg J,
    4. Castedo J,
    5. Serrano JM,
    6. Besso G,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2008;34(8):1487–1491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Taccone P,
    2. Pesenti A,
    3. Latini R,
    4. Polli F,
    5. Vagginelli F,
    6. Mietto C,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning in patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302(18):1977–1984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Taccone P,
    3. Carlesso E,
    4. Marini JJ
    . Prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Rationale, indications, and limits. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(11):1286–1293.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Papazian L,
    2. Forel JM,
    3. Gacouin A,
    4. Penot-Ragon C,
    5. Perrin G,
    6. Loundou A,
    7. et al
    . Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2010;363(12):1107–1116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Moss M,
    2. Huang DT,
    3. Brower RG,
    4. Ferguson ND,
    5. et al
    . Early neuromuscular blockade in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2019;380(21):1997–2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Marini JJ
    . Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents are part of standard care in severe ARDS patients: we are not sure. Intensive Care Med 2015;41(12):2201–2203.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kress JP,
    2. Hall JB
    . ICU-acquired weakness and recovery from critical illness. N Engl J Med 2014;371(3):287–288.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Levine S,
    2. Nguyen T,
    3. Taylor N,
    4. Friscia ME,
    5. Budak MT,
    6. Rothenberg P,
    7. et al
    . Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N Engl J Med 2008;358(13):1327–1335.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Marin-Corral J,
    2. Dot I,
    3. Boguña M,
    4. Cecchini L,
    5. Zapatero A,
    6. Gracia MP,
    7. et al
    . Structural differences in the diaphragm of patients following controlled vs assisted and spontaneous mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2019;45(4):488–500.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kanji S,
    2. Burry L,
    3. Williamson D,
    4. Pittman M,
    5. Dubinsky S,
    6. Patel D,
    7. et al
    . Therapeutic alternatives and strategies for drug conservation in the intensive care unit during times of drug shortage: a report of the Ontario COVID-19 ICU Drug Task Force. Can J Anaesth 2020;67(10):1405–1416.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Fujino Y,
    3. Amato MB,
    4. Kavanagh BP
    . Fifty years of research in ARDS: spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. risks, mechanisms, and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195(8):985–992.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    1. Spieth PM,
    2. Carvalho AR,
    3. Guldner A,
    4. Kasper M,
    5. Schubert R,
    6. Carvalho NC,
    7. et al
    . Pressure support improves oxygenation and lung protection compared to pressure-controlled ventilation and is further improved by random variation of pressure support. Crit Care Med 2011;39(4):746–755.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Zhou Y,
    2. Jin X,
    3. Lv Y,
    4. Wang P,
    5. Yang Y,
    6. Liang G,
    7. et al
    . Early application of airway pressure release ventilation may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2017;43(11):1648–1659.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Torsani V,
    3. Gomes S,
    4. De Santis RR,
    5. Beraldo MA,
    6. Costa EL,
    7. et al
    . Spontaneous effort causes occult pendelluft during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(12):1420–1427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. van Haren F,
    2. Pham T,
    3. Brochard L,
    4. Bellani G,
    5. Laffey J,
    6. Dres M,
    7. et al
    . Spontaneous breathing in early acute respiratory distress syndrome: insights from the large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure study. Crit Care Med 2019;47(2):229–238.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Villar J,
    2. Martínez D,
    3. Mosteiro F,
    4. Ambrós A,
    5. Añon JM,
    6. Ferrando C,
    7. et al
    . Is overall mortality the right composite endpoint in clinical trials of acute respiratory distress syndrome? Crit Care Med 2018;46(6):892–899.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. Bhatraju PK,
    2. Ghassemieh BJ,
    3. Nichols M,
    4. Kim R,
    5. Jerome KR,
    6. Nalla AK,
    7. et al
    . COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the seattle region - case series. N Engl J Med 2020;382(21):2012–2022.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Coppola S,
    3. Cressoni M,
    4. Busana M,
    5. Rossi S,
    6. Chiumello D
    . COVID-19 does not lead to a “typical” acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;201(10):1299–1300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Chiumello D,
    3. Rossi S
    . COVID-19 pneumonia: ARDS or not? Crit Care 2020;24(1):154.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Grasselli G,
    2. Tonetti T,
    3. Protti A,
    4. Langer T,
    5. Girardis M,
    6. Bellani G,
    7. et al
    . Pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(12):1201–1208.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (5)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 5
1 May 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.
Prone Positioning in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects With Moderate or Severe ARDS During Invasive Ventilation
(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
Prone Positioning in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects With Moderate or Severe ARDS During Invasive Ventilation
Adil Wiart, Diego Castanares-Zapatero, Xavier Wittebole, Guillaume Maerckx, Guillaume David, Pierre-François Laterre, Ludovic Gerard
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 724-732; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08461

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Prone Positioning in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects With Moderate or Severe ARDS During Invasive Ventilation
Adil Wiart, Diego Castanares-Zapatero, Xavier Wittebole, Guillaume Maerckx, Guillaume David, Pierre-François Laterre, Ludovic Gerard
Respiratory Care May 2021, 66 (5) 724-732; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08461
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
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • ARDS
  • COVID-19
  • SARS-CoV2
  • prone positioning
  • spontaneous breathing
  • pressure support ventilation

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