Yan Yuhang, Bao Junying, Cai Shumin, Zhong Xiangning, Geng Bingxuan, Liang Jingyi, Deng Zhiya, Chen Zhongqing, Qin Zaisheng, Hu HongBin, Zeng Zhenhua
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
School of Nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China.
J Intensive Care. 2025 May 7;13(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s40560-025-00795-x.
Prone positioning improves outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the optimal duration in critical care settings remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the investigates the impact of prone ventilation duration on clinical outcomes.
This retrospective study was conducted on ARDS patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), Nanfang hospital of Southern Medical University, who received prone positioning. Patients were categorized into two groups: the prolonged prone positioning (PPP) (≥ 16 h) group and the standard prone positioning (SPP) (< 16 h) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards, regression models were utilized to evaluate the association between the prone duration and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to compare 28-day mortality, with log-rank tests analyzing differences. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) were applied to investigate the time-response between prone duration, PaCO₂, PaO₂, positive end-expiratory pressure, response rate, and 28-day mortality. In addition, the incidence of prone position-related complications was assessed in both groups.
A total of 234 patients with ARDS were included, with an overall 28-day mortality of 49.1% (115/234). After PSM, 81 matched pairs were compared. The PPP group had lower 28-day mortality (46.9% vs. 53.1%; hazard ratios (HR): 0.53; 95% CI 0.32-0.85; P = 0.033) and improved prone positioning response rate [70.5% vs. 60.5%; odds ratio (OR): 1.46; 95% CI 1.23-1.89; P = 0.025]. RCS analysis suggested a reduction in mortality with prone durations ≥ 16 h, and longer durations correlated with better prone response. However, no significant association was found between PPP and reduced ICU or hospital length of stay. RCS analysis indicated a gradual decrease in 28-day mortality with increasing duration of prone positioning, and longer duration were associated with a higher likelihood of a prone response. There were no significant differences in prone ventilation-related complications between the two groups.
PPP (≥ 16 h) is associated with reduced 28-day mortality and improved response rates in ICU patients with ARDS, without increasing complication risks. Prospective studies are needed to further validate these results.
俯卧位通气可改善急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的预后,但在重症监护环境中的最佳持续时间仍不确定。本研究旨在评估俯卧通气持续时间对临床结局的影响。
本回顾性研究针对南方医科大学南方医院重症监护病房(ICU)收治的接受俯卧位通气的ARDS患者进行。患者分为两组:延长俯卧位通气(PPP)(≥16小时)组和标准俯卧位通气(SPP)(<16小时)组。采用倾向得分匹配(PSM)来平衡基线特征。使用Cox比例风险回归模型评估俯卧持续时间与临床结局之间的关联。生成Kaplan-Meier生存曲线以比较28天死亡率,并通过对数秩检验分析差异。应用受限立方样条(RCS)来研究俯卧持续时间、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)、动脉血氧分压(PaO₂)、呼气末正压、反应率和28天死亡率之间的时间响应关系。此外,评估两组中俯卧位相关并发症的发生率。
共纳入234例ARDS患者,总体28天死亡率为49.1%(115/234)。PSM后,比较了81对匹配病例。PPP组的28天死亡率较低(46.9%对53.1%;风险比(HR):0.53;95%置信区间0.32 - 0.85;P = 0.033),且俯卧位通气反应率有所提高[70.5%对60.5%;优势比(OR):1.46;95%置信区间1.23 - 1.89;P = 0.025]。RCS分析表明,俯卧持续时间≥16小时可降低死亡率,且持续时间越长,俯卧反应越好。然而,未发现PPP与缩短ICU住院时间或住院总时长之间存在显著关联。RCS分析表明,随着俯卧位通气持续时间的增加,28天死亡率逐渐降低,且持续时间越长,出现俯卧反应的可能性越高。两组之间俯卧通气相关并发症无显著差异。
PPP(≥16小时)与降低ARDS的ICU患者28天死亡率及提高反应率相关,且不增加并发症风险。需要进行前瞻性研究以进一步验证这些结果。