Guerin Claude, Gaillard Sandrine, Lemasson Stephane, Ayzac Louis, Girard Raphaele, Beuret Pascal, Palmier Bruno, Le Quoc Viet, Sirodot Michel, Rosselli Sylvaine, Cadiergue Vincent, Sainty Jean-Marie, Barbe Philippe, Combourieu Emmanuel, Debatty Daniel, Rouffineau Jean, Ezingeard Eric, Millet Olivier, Guelon Dominique, Rodriguez Luc, Martin Olivier, Renault Anne, Sibille Jean-Paul, Kaidomar Michel
Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital De La Croix-Rousse, Lyon, France.
JAMA. 2004 Nov 17;292(19):2379-87. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.19.2379.
A recent trial showed that placing patients with acute lung injury in the prone position did not increase survival; however, whether those results hold true for patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is unclear.
To determine whether prone positioning improves mortality in ARF patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, unblinded, multicenter controlled trial of 791 ARF patients in 21 general intensive care units in France using concealed randomization conducted from December 14, 1998, through December 31, 2002. To be included, patients had to be at least 18 years, hemodynamically stable, receiving mechanical ventilation, and intubated and had to have a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratio of 300 or less and no contraindications to lying prone.
Patients were randomly assigned to prone position placement (n = 413), applied as early as possible for at least 8 hours per day on standard beds, or to supine position placement (n = 378).
The primary end point was 28-day mortality; secondary end points were 90-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and oxygenation.
The 2 groups were comparable at randomization. The 28-day mortality rate was 32.4% for the prone group and 31.5% for the supine group (relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.19; P = .77). Ninety-day mortality for the prone group was 43.3% vs 42.2% for the supine group (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .74). The mean (SD) duration of mechanical ventilation was 13.7 (7.8) days for the prone group vs 14.1 (8.6) days for the supine group (P = .93) and the VAP incidence was 1.66 vs 2.14 episodes per 100-patients days of intubation, respectively (P = .045). The PaO2/FIO2 ratio was significantly higher in the prone group during the 28-day follow-up. However, pressure sores, selective intubation, and endotracheal tube obstruction incidences were higher in the prone group.
This trial demonstrated no beneficial outcomes and some safety concerns associated with prone positioning. For patients with hypoxemic ARF, prone position placement may lower the incidence of VAP.
最近一项试验表明,急性肺损伤患者采用俯卧位并不能提高生存率;然而,这些结果对于低氧性急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)患者是否成立尚不清楚。
确定俯卧位是否能降低ARF患者的死亡率。
设计、地点和患者:1998年12月14日至2002年12月31日在法国21个综合重症监护病房对791例ARF患者进行的前瞻性、非盲、多中心对照试验,采用隐蔽随机分组。纳入患者须年满18岁,血流动力学稳定,接受机械通气并已插管,动脉血氧分压(PaO2)与吸入氧分数(FIO2)之比为300或更低,且无俯卧位禁忌证。
患者被随机分配至俯卧位组(n = 413),尽早在标准床上每天至少俯卧8小时,或仰卧位组(n = 378)。
主要终点为28天死亡率;次要终点为90天死亡率、机械通气时间、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)发生率及氧合情况。
随机分组时两组具有可比性。俯卧位组28天死亡率为32.4%,仰卧位组为31.5%(相对危险度[RR],0.97;95%置信区间[CI],0.79 - 1.19;P = 0.77)。俯卧位组90天死亡率为43.3%,仰卧位组为42.2%(RR,0.98;95%CI,0.84 - 1.13;P = 0.74)。俯卧位组机械通气平均(标准差)时间为13.7(7.8)天,仰卧位组为14.1(8.6)天(P = 0.93),VAP发生率分别为每100例患者插管日1.66次和2.14次(P = 0.045)。在28天随访期间,俯卧位组的PaO2/FIO2比值显著更高。然而,俯卧位组的压疮、选择性插管和气管内导管阻塞发生率更高。
本试验表明俯卧位没有有益结果且存在一些安全问题。对于低氧性ARF患者,俯卧位可能会降低VAP发生率。