Prone Position Ventilation in Severe ARDS due to COVID-19: Comparison between Prolonged and Intermittent Strategies

5Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Ventilation in a prone position (PP) for 12 to 16 h per day improves survival in ARDS. However, the optimal duration of the intervention is unknown. We performed a prospective observational study to compare the efficacy and safety of a prolonged PP protocol with conventional prone ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS. Prone position was undertaken if P/F < 150 with FiO2 > 0.6 and PEEP > 10 cm H2O. Oxygenation parameters and respiratory mechanics were recorded before the first PP cycle, at the end of the PP cycle and 4 h after supination. We included 63 consecutive intubated patients with a mean age of 63.5 years. Of them, 37 (58.7%) underwent prolonged prone position (PPP group) and 26 (41.3%) standard prone position (SPP group). The median cycle duration for the SPP group was 20 h and for the PPP group 46 h (p < 0.001). No significant differences in oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, number of PP cycles and rate of complications were observed between groups. The 28-day survival was 78.4% in the PPP group versus 65.4% in the SPP group (p = 0.253). Extending the duration of PP was as safe and efficacious as conventional PP, but did not confer any survival benefit in a cohort of patients with severe ARDS due to COVID-19.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Karlis, G., Markantonaki, D., Kakavas, S., Bakali, D., Katsagani, G., Katsarou, T., … Daganou, M. (2023). Prone Position Ventilation in Severe ARDS due to COVID-19: Comparison between Prolonged and Intermittent Strategies. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12103526

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free