University Hospital of Modena, Respiratory Diseases Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences SMECHIMAI, University of Modena Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Clinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, University Hospital Sant'Orsola - Malpighi-Respiratory and Critical Care Unit, Bologna, Italy.
Pulmonology. 2022 May-Jun;28(3):181-192. doi: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.03.002. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
BACKGROUND/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated.
A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different.
Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.
背景/材料和方法:本回顾性队列研究在两家教学医院进行,时间为 3 个月(2010 年 3 月至 2020 年 6 月),比较了因非侵入性呼吸支持(NRS)而入住呼吸重症监护病房的严重和危重症 COVID-19 患者,并接受清醒俯卧位(PP)与接受标准护理(SC)的患者。主要结局是气管插管(ETI)率。住院死亡率、ETI 时间、气管切开术、RICU 住院时间和住院时间为次要结局。还调查了 PP 患者与 ETI 相关的危险因素。
共纳入 114 例患者,SC 组 76 例,PP 组 38 例。未经调整的 Kaplan-Meier 估计显示,与 SC 相比,PP 对 ETI 率的影响更大(HR=0.45,95%CI[0.2-0.9],p=0.02),即使在调整基线混杂因素后(HR=0.59,95%CI[0.3-0.94],p=0.03)。根据非侵入性呼吸支持进行分层后,PP 对接受高流量鼻导管(HFNC)的患者的益处更为显著(HR=0.34,95%CI[0.12-0.84],p=0.04)。与 SC 相比,PP 患者在无呼吸支持天数、RICU 住院时间和住院时间方面也表现出有利差异,而死亡率和气管切开术率无显著差异。
清醒和自主呼吸的 COVID-19 患者俯卧位是可行的,与降低插管率相关,尤其是在接受 HFNC 的患者中。尽管我们的结果很有吸引力,但仍需要进一步的随机对照试验来回答所有关于 PP 在这种情况下的实际疗效仍未解决的问题。