» Articles » PMID: 33343939

Prone Versus Supine Position Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview
Journal Emerg Med Int
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2020 Dec 21
PMID 33343939
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of prone versus supine position ventilation for adult acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception up to September 2020. The relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed to calculate pooled outcomes using the random-effects models. Twelve randomized controlled trials that had recruited a total of 2264 adults with ARDS were selected for the final meta-analysis. The risk of mortality in patients who received prone position ventilation was 13% lower than for those who received supine ventilation, but this effect was not statistically significant (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.00;  = 0.055). There were no significant differences between prone and supine position ventilation on the duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD: -0.22;  = 0.883) or ICU stays (WMD: -0.39;  = 0.738). The pooled RRs indicate that patients who received prone position ventilation had increased incidence of pressure scores (RR: 1.23;  = 0.003), displacement of a thoracotomy tube (RR: 3.14;  = 0.047), and endotracheal tube obstruction (RR: 2.45;  = 0.001). The results indicated that prone positioning during ventilation might have a beneficial effect on mortality, though incidence of several adverse events was significantly increased for these patients.

Citing Articles

Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel.

Schaller S, Scheffenbichler F, Bein T, Blobner M, Grunow J, Hamsen U Intensive Care Med. 2024; 50(8):1211-1227.

PMID: 39073582 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-024-07532-2.


Prone Positioning in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients: Timing of Initiation and Outcomes.

Jackson A, Neyroud F, Barnsley J, Hunter E, Beecham R, Radharetnas M J Clin Med. 2023; 12(13).

PMID: 37445260 PMC: 10342481. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134226.


Postoperative hypoxemia for patients undergoing Stanford type A aortic dissection.

Liu H, Zhang S, Zhang C, Gao Q, Liu Y, Ge S World J Clin Cases. 2023; 11(14):3140-3147.

PMID: 37274044 PMC: 10237117. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i14.3140.


Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huang H, Yao Y, Zhu Y, Du B Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9:984446.

PMID: 36160173 PMC: 9500207. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.984446.

References
1.
Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower R, Talmor D, Walter S . Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010; 303(9):865-73. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.218. View

2.
Guerin C, Gaillard S, Lemasson S, Ayzac L, Girard R, Beuret P . Effects of systematic prone positioning in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 292(19):2379-87. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.19.2379. View

3.
Fernandez R, Trenchs X, Klamburg J, Castedo J, Serrano J, Besso G . Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2008; 34(8):1487-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1119-3. View

4.
Alsaghir A, Martin C . Effect of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2008; 36(2):603-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000299739.98236.05. View

5.
Mercat A, Richard J, Vielle B, Jaber S, Osman D, Diehl J . Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008; 299(6):646-55. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.6.646. View