Kopterides Petros, Siempos Ilias I, Armaganidis Apostolos
2nd Critical Care Department, University of Athens Medical School, Attiko University Hospital, Athens 12462, Greece.
J Crit Care. 2009 Mar;24(1):89-100. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2007.12.014. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
Prone positioning is used to improve oxygenation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF). However, its role in clinical practice is not yet clearly defined. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of prone positioning on relevant clinical outcomes, such as intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality, days of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and pneumothorax, and associated complications.
We used literature search of MEDLINE, Current Contents, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We focused only on randomized controlled trials reporting clinical outcomes in adult patients with HRF. Four trials met our inclusion criteria, including 662 patients randomized to prone ventilation and 609 patients to supine ventilation.
The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the ICU mortality in the intention-to-treat analysis was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.22), for the comparison between prone and supine ventilated patients. Interestingly, the pooled OR for the ICU mortality in the selected group of the more severely ill patients favored prone positioning (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.66). The duration of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of pneumothorax were not different between the 2 groups. The incidence of VAP was lower but not statistically significant in patients treated with prone positioning (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.10). However, prone positioning was associated with a higher risk of pressure sores (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.17-1.89) and a trend for more complications related to the endotracheal tube (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.94-1.80).
Despite the inherent limitations of the meta-analytic approach, it seems that prone positioning has no discernible effect on mortality in patients with HRF. It may decrease the incidence of VAP at the expense of more pressure sores and complications related to the endotracheal tube. However, a subgroup of the most severely ill patients may benefit most from this intervention.
俯卧位通气用于改善低氧性呼吸衰竭(HRF)患者的氧合。然而,其在临床实践中的作用尚未明确界定。本荟萃分析的目的是评估俯卧位通气对相关临床结局的影响,如重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率、医院死亡率、机械通气天数、住院时间、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)和气胸的发生率以及相关并发症。
我们检索了MEDLINE、《现刊目次》和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库。我们仅关注报告成年HRF患者临床结局的随机对照试验。四项试验符合我们的纳入标准,包括662例随机接受俯卧位通气的患者和609例接受仰卧位通气的患者。
在意向性分析中,俯卧位通气与仰卧位通气患者相比,ICU死亡率的合并比值比(OR)为0.97(95%置信区间[CI],0.77 - 1.22)。有趣的是,在病情较重的选定患者组中,ICU死亡率的合并OR有利于俯卧位通气(OR,0.34;95%CI,0.18 - 0.66)。两组之间机械通气时间和气胸发生率无差异。接受俯卧位通气的患者VAP发生率较低,但无统计学意义(OR,0.81;95%CI,0.61 - 1.10)。然而,俯卧位通气与压疮风险较高相关(OR,1.49;95%CI,1.17 - 1.89),并且与气管内导管相关的并发症有增加趋势(OR,1.30;95%CI,0.94 - 1.80)。
尽管荟萃分析方法存在固有局限性,但俯卧位通气似乎对HRF患者的死亡率没有明显影响。它可能会降低VAP的发生率,但代价是更多的压疮和与气管内导管相关的并发症。然而,病情最重的患者亚组可能从这种干预中获益最大。