Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Prone Position in the Operating Room or in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review.

The prone position is commonly used in certain surgical procedures and to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cardiorespiratory arrest (CRA) in this position may be more challenging to treat because care providers trained in conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may not be familiar with CPR in the prone position. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of current evidence regarding the methodology, efficacy, and experience of CPR in the prone position, in patients with the airway already secured. The search strategy included PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. All studies published up to April 2020 including CRA or CPR in the prone position were included. Of the 268 articles located, 52 articles were included: 5 review articles, 8 clinical guidelines in which prone CPR was mentioned, 4 originals, 27 case reports, and 8 editorials or correspondences. Data from reviewed clinical studies confirm that CPR in the prone position is a reasonable alternative to supine CPR when the latter cannot be immediately implemented, and the airway is already secured. Defibrillation in the prone position is also possible. Familiarizing clinicians with CPR and defibrillation in the prone position may improve CPR performance in the prone position.

Assessment of Therapeutic Interventions and Lung Protective Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: A number of interventions are available to manage patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the associations of currently available ventilatory strategies and adjunctive therapies with mortality are uncertain. Objectives: To compare and rank different therapeutic strategies to identify the best intervention associated with a reduction in mortality in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Data Sources: An electronic search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs Ahead of Print, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register (Central), PubMed, and CINAHL was conducted, from database inception to May 29, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of interventions for adults with moderate to severe ARDS that used lung protective ventilation. No language restrictions were applied. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Barotrauma was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 25 randomized clinical trials evaluating 9 interventions, 2686 of 7743 patients (34.6%) died within 28 days. Compared with lung protective ventilation alone, prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality (prone positioning: risk ratio, 0.69; 95% credible interval, 0.48-0.99; low quality of evidence; venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: risk ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.38-0.93; moderate quality of evidence). These 2 interventions had the highest ranking probabilities, although they were not significantly different from each other. Among 18 trials reporting on barotrauma, 448 of 6258 patients (7.2%) experienced this secondary outcome. No intervention was superior to any other in reducing barotrauma, and each represented low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: This network meta-analysis supports the use of prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in addition to lung protective ventilation in patients with ARDS. Moreover, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered as an early strategy for adults with severe ARDS receiving lung protective ventilation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in the Prone versus Lateral Position: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the prone position (TEP) may be more feasible than TE in the lateral position (TEL); however, few studies have compared long-term survival between the two procedures. We evaluated whether TEP is oncologically equivalent to TEL. METHODS: Surgical outcomes of TEs performed from January 2006 to December 2013 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: TE was performed in 200 patients diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; 78 patients were matched in two procedures. The mean thoracic operative time in TEL was shorter than in TEP (228.9 min vs. 299.1 min; p < 0.001); however, the mean thoracic blood loss in TEL was higher than in TEP (186.9 ml vs. 76.5 ml; p < 0.001). The mean number of thoracic lymph nodes harvested in TEL was lower than in TEP (23.5 vs. 26.9; p < 0.05), and the pulmonary complication rate in TEL was higher than in TEP (30.8% vs. 15.4%; p < 0.05). The 5-year overall survival rates in pathological stage I (81.2% vs. 81.6%; p = 0.82), stage II (65.3% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.21), stage III (26.7% vs. 24.2%; p = 0.86) and all stages (63.6% vs. 62.3%; p = 0.88), and the 5-year progression-free survival rates in pathological stage I (78.0% vs. 81.8%; p = 0.54), stage II (53.5% vs. 77.6%; p = 0.13), stage III (10.5% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.81) and all stages (53.6% vs. 57.9%; p = 0.50) were not significantly different between the two procedures. CONCLUSION: TEP and TEL provide equal oncological efficiency.

Prone Positioning in Cardiac Surgery: For Many, But Not for Everyone.

Prone positioning is a therapeutic maneuver to improve arterial oxygenation in patients with acute lung injury that is not implemented in most centers performing adult cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to review our experience with prone positioning to assess the effects of this maneuver in patients with postoperative acute respiratory failure. From 2010-2014, 127 adult patients with postoperative acute respiratory failure were treated with prone positioning in addition to specific therapy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was 22.8% (n = 29). No significant differences were observed in preoperative risk factors between patients who survived (S) and those who died (D), except for age (62.7 ± 11.2 vs 70.2 ± 11.3; P = 0.007-at multivariate analysis P = 0.03, odds ratio [OR] = 1.1/year). Preproning values of PaO2/FiO2 were significantly different between groups (D vs S: 115 ± 46 vs 150 ± 56; P = 0.006), but only preproning FiO2 remained highly significant at multivariate analysis (D vs S: 0.82 ± 0.18 vs 0.67 ± 0.16; P = 0.001, OR = 1.07; with FiO2 > 0.75 vs < 75, OR = 19.6). D showed a higher improvement of PaO2/FiO2 immediately after prone positioning (207 ± 100 vs 219 ± 90, P = 0.56; within-group analysis between preproning and 1 hour after proning: S-P = 0.49, D-P = 0.019; at 12 hours: 286 ± 123 vs 240 ± 120, P = 0.06; within-group analysis between 1 hour and 12 hours after proning: S-P = 0.15; D-P = 0.17; between groups-P = 0.05). D had higher peak WBC count (26 ± 9.8 vs 17.7 ± 5.9×103/mL; P = 0.0001) and a higher rate of low output syndrome (15 vs 9 patients-51.7% vs 9.2%; P = 0.0001). At multivariate analysis, white blood cell count: P = 0.005, OR = 1.11/103 white blood cell; low output syndrome: P = 0.0002, OR = 20.5. In conclusion, our results show that prone positioning, if performed early, is a safe and effective adjunct measure for patients with postoperative acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of noncardiogenic origin.

Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults.

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxaemia de novo or on a background of chronic hypoxaemia is a common reason for admission to intensive care and for provision of mechanical ventilation. Various refinements of mechanical ventilation or adjuncts are employed to improve patient outcomes. Mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome, one of the main contributors to the need for mechanical ventilation for hypoxaemia, remains approximately 40%. Ventilation in the prone position may improve lung mechanics and gas exchange and could improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review are (1) to ascertain whether prone ventilation offers a mortality advantage when compared with traditional supine or semi recumbent ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory failure requiring conventional invasive artificial ventilation, and (2) to supplement previous systematic reviews on prone ventilation for hypoxaemic respiratory failure in an adult population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 31 January 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 31 January 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 31 January 2014) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1992 to 31 January 2014) in Ovid MEDLINE for eligible randomized controlled trials. We also searched for studies by handsearching reference lists of relevant articles, by contacting colleagues and by handsearching published proceedings of relevant journals. We applied no language constraints, and we reran the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS in June 2015. We added five new studies of potential interest to the list of "Studies awaiting classification" and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effects of prone position versus supine/semi recumbent position during conventional mechanical ventilation in adult participants with acute hypoxaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed all trials identified by the search and assessed them for suitability, methods and quality. Two review authors extracted data, and three review authors reviewed the data extracted. We analysed data using Review Manager software and pooled included studies to determine the risk ratio (RR) for mortality and the risk ratio or mean difference (MD) for secondary outcomes; we also performed subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine relevant RCTs, which enrolled a total of 2165 participants (10 publications). All recruited participants suffered from disorders of lung function causing moderate to severe hypoxaemia and requiring mechanical ventilation, so they were fairly comparable, given the heterogeneity of specific disease diagnoses in intensive care. Risk of bias, although acceptable in the view of the review authors, was inevitable: Blinding of participants and carers to treatment allocation was not possible (face-up vs face-down).Primary analyses of short- and longer-term mortality pooled from six trials demonstrated an RR of 0.84 to 0.86 in favour of the prone position (PP), but findings were not statistically significant: In the short term, mortality for those ventilated prone was 33.4% (363/1086) and supine 38.3% (395/1031). This resulted in an RR of 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.02) marginally in favour of PP. For longer-term mortality, results showed 41.7% (462/1107) for prone and 47.1% (490/1041) for supine positions, with an RR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03). The quality of the evidence for both outcomes was rated as low as a result of important potential bias and serious inconsistency.Subgroup analyses for mortality identified three groups consistently favouring PP: those recruited within 48 hours of meeting entry criteria (five trials; 1024 participants showed an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 94)); those treated in the PP for 16 or more hours per day (five trials; 1005 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.99)); and participants with more severe hypoxaemia at trial entry (six trials; 1108 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). The quality of the evidence for these outcomes was rated as moderate as a result of potentially important bias.Prone positioning appeared to influence adverse effects: Pressure sores (three trials; 366 participants) with an RR of 1.37 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.79) and tracheal tube obstruction with an RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.60) were increased with prone ventilation. Reporting of arrhythmias was reduced with PP, with an RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.87). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no convincing evidence of benefit nor harm from universal application of PP in adults with hypoxaemia mechanically ventilated in intensive care units (ICUs). Three subgroups (early implementation of PP, prolonged adoption of PP and severe hypoxaemia at study entry) suggested that prone positioning may confer a statistically significant mortality advantage. Additional adequately powered studies would be required to confirm or refute these possibilities of subgroup benefit but are unlikely, given results of the most recent study and recommendations derived from several published subgroup analyses. Meta-analysis of individual patient data could be useful for further data exploration in this regard. Complications such as tracheal obstruction are increased with use of prone ventilation. Long-term mortality data (12 months and beyond), as well as functional, neuro-psychological and quality of life data, are required if future studies are to better inform the role of PP in the management of hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the ICU.

Act fast and ventilate soft: the Düsseldorf hands-on translation of the acute respiratory distress syndrome Berlin definition.

Early identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and forceful implementation of standardized therapy algorithms are the mandatory basis of an effective therapy to improve patient outcome. Recently, a new definition of ARDS was implemented, which simplified the diagnostic criteria for ARDS. Evidence-based therapies are rare, but some cornerstone interventions can be recommended. Lung-protective ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure and low tidal volume and early prone positioning in severe cases improve survival rate. We here present an integrated "Düsseldorf hands-on translation" in the form of a "one-page" standard operating procedure in order to fasten and standardize both diagnosis and therapeutic algorithms on an intensive care unit.

The efficacy and safety of prone positional ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated study-level meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The survival benefit of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome has been a matter of debate. Recent multicenter randomized controlled trials have shown a significant reduction of 28-day and 90-day mortality associated with prone positioning during mechanical ventilation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis on this topic and elucidated the effect of prone positioning on overall mortality and associated complications. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, BioMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference proceedings through May 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trial comparing overall mortality of prone-versus-supine positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted for populations, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. The prespecified primary endpoint was overall mortality, using the longest available follow-up in each study. The odds ratio with 95% CI was the effect measure. DATA SYNTHESIS: This analysis included 11 randomized controlled trial, 2,246 total adult patients, and 1,142 patients ventilated in the prone position. Prone positioning during ventilation significantly reduced overall mortality in the random-effect model (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99; p = 0.039; I = 33.7%), and the effects were marked in the subgroup in which the duration of prone positioning was more than 10 hr/session, compared with the subgroup with a short-term duration of prone positioning (odds ratio, 0.62; 9% CI, 0.48-0.79; p = 0.039; pinteraction = 0.015). Prone positioning was significantly associated with pressure ulcers (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.89; p = 0.001; I = 0.0%) and major airway problems (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.10-2.17; p = 0.012; I = 32.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Ventilation in the prone position significantly reduced overall mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sufficient duration of prone positioning was significantly associated with a reduction in overall mortality. Prone ventilation was also significantly associated with pressure ulcers and major airway problems.

An updated study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on proning in ARDS and acute lung injury.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed a consistent trend of mortality reduction with prone ventilation. We updated a meta-analysis on this topic. METHODS: RCTs that compared ventilation of adult patients with ALI/ARDS in prone versus supine position were included in this study-level meta-analysis. Analysis was made by a random-effects model. The effect size on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was computed in the overall included studies and in two subgroups of studies: those that included all ALI or hypoxemic patients, and those that restricted inclusion to only ARDS patients. A relationship between studies' effect size and daily prone duration was sought with meta-regression. We also computed the effects of prone positioning on major adverse airway complications. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (including 1,675 adult patients, of whom 862 were ventilated in the prone position) were included. The four most recent trials included only ARDS patients, and also applied the longest proning durations and used lung-protective ventilation. The effects of prone positioning differed according to the type of study. Overall, prone ventilation did not reduce ICU mortality (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 1.2; P = 0.39), but it significantly reduced the ICU mortality in the four recent studies that enrolled only patients with ARDS (odds ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.5 to 0.99; P = 0.048; number needed to treat = 11). Meta-regression on all studies disclosed only a trend to explain effect variation by prone duration (P = 0.06). Prone positioning was not associated with a statistical increase in major airway complications. CONCLUSIONS: Long duration of ventilation in prone position significantly reduces ICU mortality when only ARDS patients are considered.