Impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a randomized crossover clinical trial.

Douglas Neves, Paulo Ricardo Marques Filho, Raquel da Silva Townsend, Cristiano Dos Santos Rodrigues, Luciana Tagliari, Laura Cordeiro Madeira, Mariana Fensterseifer Mattioni, Márcio Luiz Ferreira de Camillis, Clarissa Garcia Soares Leães, Juliana Mara Stormovski de Andrade, Caroline Cabral Robinson, Daniel Sganzerla, Laura Drehmer, Denis Fernandes Madruga da Costa, André Sant'Ana Machado, Regis Goulart Rosa, Pedro Dal Lago
{"title":"Impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a randomized crossover clinical trial.","authors":"Douglas Neves, Paulo Ricardo Marques Filho, Raquel da Silva Townsend, Cristiano Dos Santos Rodrigues, Luciana Tagliari, Laura Cordeiro Madeira, Mariana Fensterseifer Mattioni, Márcio Luiz Ferreira de Camillis, Clarissa Garcia Soares Leães, Juliana Mara Stormovski de Andrade, Caroline Cabral Robinson, Daniel Sganzerla, Laura Drehmer, Denis Fernandes Madruga da Costa, André Sant'Ana Machado, Regis Goulart Rosa, Pedro Dal Lago","doi":"10.5935/2965-2774.20230069-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of different vertical positions on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open-label randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted between January and July 2020. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours and < 7 days with hemodynamic, respiratory and neurological stability were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the sitting position followed by passive orthostasis condition or the passive orthostasis followed by the sitting position condition. The primary outcome was lung aeration assessed using the lung ultrasound score (score ranges from 0 [better] to 36 [worse]).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 186 subjects were screened; of these subjects, 19 were enrolled (57.8% male; mean age, 73.2 years). All participants were assigned to receive at least one verticalization protocol. Passive orthostasis resulted in mean lung ultrasound scores that did not differ significantly from the sitting position (11.0 versus 13.7; mean difference, -2.7; [95%CI -6.1 to 0.71; p = 0.11). Adverse events occurred in three subjects in the passive orthostasis group and in one in the sitting position group (p = 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This analysis did not find significant differences in lung aeration between the sitting and passive orthostasis groups. A randomized crossover clinical trial assessing the impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation is feasible. Unfortunately, the study was interrupted due to the need to treat COVID-19 patients.ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04176445.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":"35 4","pages":"367-376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10802776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230069-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of different vertical positions on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Methods: An open-label randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted between January and July 2020. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours and < 7 days with hemodynamic, respiratory and neurological stability were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to the sitting position followed by passive orthostasis condition or the passive orthostasis followed by the sitting position condition. The primary outcome was lung aeration assessed using the lung ultrasound score (score ranges from 0 [better] to 36 [worse]).

Results: A total of 186 subjects were screened; of these subjects, 19 were enrolled (57.8% male; mean age, 73.2 years). All participants were assigned to receive at least one verticalization protocol. Passive orthostasis resulted in mean lung ultrasound scores that did not differ significantly from the sitting position (11.0 versus 13.7; mean difference, -2.7; [95%CI -6.1 to 0.71; p = 0.11). Adverse events occurred in three subjects in the passive orthostasis group and in one in the sitting position group (p = 0.99).

Conclusion: This analysis did not find significant differences in lung aeration between the sitting and passive orthostasis groups. A randomized crossover clinical trial assessing the impact of vertical positioning on lung aeration in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation is feasible. Unfortunately, the study was interrupted due to the need to treat COVID-19 patients.ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04176445.

垂直定位对机械通气重症监护室患者肺通气的影响:随机交叉临床试验。
目的:评估不同垂直位置对接受有创机械通气患者肺通气的影响:评估不同垂直位置对接受有创机械通气患者肺通气的影响:在 2020 年 1 月至 7 月期间进行了一项开放标签随机交叉临床试验。按照 1:1 的比例,将接受有创机械通气时间大于 24 小时且小于 7 天、血流动力学、呼吸和神经系统稳定的成人随机分配到先坐位后被动正位的条件下,或先被动正位后坐位的条件下。主要结果是使用肺部超声评分评估肺部通气情况(评分范围从 0 [较好] 到 36 [较差]):共筛选出 186 名受试者,其中 19 人被录取(57.8% 为男性;平均年龄 73.2 岁)。所有受试者均被分配接受至少一种垂直化方案。被动正位导致的平均肺部超声评分与坐位没有显著差异(11.0 对 13.7;平均差异,-2.7;[95%CI -6.1 至 0.71;p = 0.11)。被动正位组有 3 名受试者出现不良反应,坐位组有 1 名受试者出现不良反应(P = 0.99):该分析未发现坐位组和被动正位组在肺通气方面存在明显差异。评估垂直体位对接受有创机械通气患者肺通气影响的随机交叉临床试验是可行的。遗憾的是,由于需要治疗 COVID-19 患者,研究被迫中断:NCT04176445。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信