Stilma Willemke, van Meenen David M P, Valk Christel M A, de Bruin Hendrik, Paulus Frederique, Serpa Neto Ary, Schultz Marcus J
Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Location 'AMC', 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, 1105 BD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 19;10(20):4783. doi: 10.3390/jcm10204783.
We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%-the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5-21.0) hours per full calendar day-the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0-23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0-19.0) hours, < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76-1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62-1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80-1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73-1.26) ( = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
在荷兰22个重症监护病房开展的一项全国性多中心观察性研究中,我们描述了俯卧位通气的发生率及实施情况,并确定了在因2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)导致急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)且接受有创通气的患者中,俯卧位通气的使用与预后之间的关联。根据俯卧位通气的指征及实际使用情况,将患者分为4组。主要结局为28天死亡率。次要终点为90天死亡率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和住院时间。在734例患者中,60%的患者有俯卧位通气指征——有指征患者的俯卧位通气发生率高于无指征患者(77%对48%,P = 0.001)。患者全天处于俯卧位的中位时长为15.0(10.5 - 21.0)小时——有指征患者的时长比无指征患者更长(16.0(11.0 - 23.0)小时对14.0(10.0 - 19.0)小时,P < 0.001)。除了有指征且实际接受俯卧位通气的患者的吸氧浓度(FiO₂)较高外,四组之间的呼吸机设置和通气参数并无差异。我们的数据显示,4组患者在28天时的死亡率无差异(风险比:无指征、未进行俯卧位通气对无指征、进行俯卧位通气对有指征、未进行俯卧位通气对有指征、进行俯卧位通气:1.05(0.76 - 1.45)对0.88(0.62 - 1.26)对1.15(0.80 - 1.54)对0.96(0.73 - 1.26)(P = 0.08))。与使用俯卧位通气相关的因素为ARDS严重程度和FiO₂。本研究的结果是,俯卧位通气在COVID-19患者中经常使用,即使在无此干预指征的患者中也是如此。俯卧位通气疗程持续时间较长。使用俯卧位通气可能会影响预后。