Hochberg Chad H, Psoter Kevin J, Sahetya Sarina K, Nolley Eric P, Hossen Shakir, Checkley William, Kerlin Meeta P, Eakin Michelle N, Hager David N
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Crit Care Explor. 2022 May 13;4(5):e0695. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000695. eCollection 2022 May.
Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown.
To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic.
We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020-2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018-2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland.
The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency.
Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7-57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained.
We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.
新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)引发的急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者俯卧位通气的使用率可能高于疫情前接受ARDS治疗的患者。然而,这种增加的幅度、实践差异的来源以及使用遵循指南的程度尚不清楚。
比较COVID-19相关性ARDS患者与疫情前治疗的ARDS患者的俯卧位通气实践情况。
设计、设置和参与者:我们对马里兰州五家医院19个重症监护病房(ICU)中机械通气的早期中重度COVID-19相关性ARDS患者(2020 - 2021年)或非COVID-19肺炎相关性ARDS患者(2018 - 2019年)进行了一项多中心回顾性队列研究。
主要结局是在达到氧合标准后48小时内开始延长俯卧位通气(≥16小时)。对各队列之间以及包括学术医院与社区医院、医疗ICU与非医疗ICU在内的亚组之间进行比较。其他感兴趣的结局包括开始俯卧位通气的时间、俯卧位通气疗程的持续时间以及俯卧位通气频率的时间趋势。
389例COVID-19患者中有227例(58.4%)在48小时内开始俯卧位通气,123例历史ARDS患者中有11例(8.9%)在48小时内开始俯卧位通气(绝对增加49.4%[增加百分比的95%置信区间,41.7 - 57.1%])。将COVID-19患者与历史ARDS患者进行比较,学术医院和社区医院俯卧位通气的增加相似,但医疗ICU与非医疗ICU相比增加幅度更大。与历史ARDS患者相比,COVID-19患者开始俯卧位通气的时间更早(从达到氧合标准起的中位小时数,12.9对30.6;P = 0.002),俯卧位通气疗程更长(中位小时数,43.0对28.0;P = 0.01)。在疫情开始时俯卧位通气频率迅速增加并持续保持。
我们观察到与历史ARDS患者相比,COVID-19相关性ARDS患者总体上俯卧位通气的使用率更高,开始俯卧位通气的时间更短,俯卧位通气疗程更长。这种快速的实践变化可以作为在重症监护中实施循证实践的一个范例。