Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Extended Versus Standard Proning Duration for COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Target Trial Emulation Study.
Hochberg, Chad H; Colantuoni, Elizabeth; Sahetya, Sarina; Eakin, Michelle N; Fan, Eddy; Psoter, Kevin J; Iwashyna, Theodore J; Needham, Dale M; Hager, David N.
Afiliação
  • Hochberg CH; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States; chochbe1@jh.edu.
  • Colantuoni E; Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Biostatistics, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Sahetya S; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Eakin MN; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Fan E; University of Toronto, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Psoter KJ; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Pediatrics, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Iwashyna TJ; The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Needham DM; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
  • Hager DN; The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 2024 Jun 27.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38935831
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE Prone positioning for > 16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:

To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS.

METHODS:

Data were extracted from a 5-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (> 24 hours) versus standard (16-24 hours) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended vs. standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and ICU discharge. Analytically we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox, or Fine and Gray regression models.

RESULTS:

314 patients were included, 234 who received extended proning, and 80 who received standard duration. Extended proning patients were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended vs. standard proning groups was 39% vs 58%. In doubly-robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended vs. standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (sub-distribution hazard [sHR] 1.60, [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (sHR 1.31 [0.82-2.10]).

CONCLUSION:

Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended vs. standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Ann Am Thorac Soc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Ann Am Thorac Soc Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article