Efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning in the treatment of non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Jingjing Wang , Daonan Chen , Puyu Deng , Chenchen Zhang , Xue Zhan , Hui Lv , Hui Xie , Dechang Chen , Ruilan Wang
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning in the treatment of non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Jingjing Wang ,&nbsp;Daonan Chen ,&nbsp;Puyu Deng ,&nbsp;Chenchen Zhang ,&nbsp;Xue Zhan ,&nbsp;Hui Lv ,&nbsp;Hui Xie ,&nbsp;Dechang Chen ,&nbsp;Ruilan Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jointm.2023.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone positioning has been widely applied for non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients. However, the efficacy and safety of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure remain unclear. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning (APP).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to June 3, 2022. This study included adult patients with acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 495 studies were identified, of which 10 fulfilled the selection criteria, and 2294 patients were included. In comparison to supine positioning, APP significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.95). The two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.48–2.76). The meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality between the groups (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>APP was safe and reduced the need for intubation in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. However, it did not significantly reduce mortality in comparison to usual care without prone positioning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73799,"journal":{"name":"Journal of intensive medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of intensive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667100X23000051","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

Background

Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone positioning has been widely applied for non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients. However, the efficacy and safety of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure remain unclear. We aimed to systematically analyze the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning (APP).

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to June 3, 2022. This study included adult patients with acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]).

Results

A total of 495 studies were identified, of which 10 fulfilled the selection criteria, and 2294 patients were included. In comparison to supine positioning, APP significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.95). The two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.48–2.76). The meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality between the groups (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11).

Conclusions

APP was safe and reduced the need for intubation in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. However, it did not significantly reduce mortality in comparison to usual care without prone positioning.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

清醒俯卧位治疗非插管自主呼吸患者covid -19相关急性呼吸衰竭的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析
自2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行开始以来,俯卧位已广泛应用于非插管自主呼吸患者。然而,俯卧位在非插管的新冠肺炎相关急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者中的疗效和安全性尚不清楚。我们的目的是系统地分析与清醒俯卧位(APP)相关的结果。方法系统检索2020年1月1日至2022年6月3日PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、Embase和Web of Science的文献。本研究纳入了由COVID-19引起的急性呼吸衰竭的成年患者。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,使用Cochrane风险偏倚工具评估研究质量。主要结局是随机对照试验(rct)中报告的累积插管风险,效果估计以风险比(rr;95%置信区间[CI])。结果共纳入495项研究,其中10项符合入选标准,纳入患者2294例。与仰卧位相比,APP显着减少了总体人群的插管需求(RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95)。两组不良事件发生率差异无统计学意义(RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.48 ~ 2.76)。meta分析显示两组间死亡率无差异(RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.11)。结论在COVID-19合并呼吸衰竭患者中,sapp是安全的,并且减少了插管的需要。然而,与没有俯卧位的常规护理相比,它并没有显著降低死亡率。
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
Journal of intensive medicine
Journal of intensive medicine Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
58 days
×
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