Theme Issue EditorialEfficacy of prone ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory failure: A meta-analysis☆
Introduction
Acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute lung injury (ALI) is one of the common causes for admission of patients to the intensive care unit (ICU). In spite of the improvements in the care of patients managed in ICUs, the mortality of patients admitted with ARDS remains high [1]. The advances in intensive care medicine over the last few decades have introduced a number of novel treatment practices such as liquid ventilation, surfactant, prone ventilation, and inhalation of nitric oxide to aid in mechanical ventilation and reduce ventilator-associated lung injury. Prone position ventilation has been extensively investigated over the last 2 decades. Prone ventilation was reported to have beneficial effects not only in terms of improved oxygenation but also in reducing the incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury and oxygen toxicity in patients with severe respiratory failure [2]. In addition, a reduction in mortality was also reported when prone ventilation was used [3], [4]. However, most of these studies were either retrospective evaluations or prospective nonrandomized clinical trials. The first randomized controlled evaluation of prone ventilation was reported by Gattinoni et al [5] in 2001. In this study, the use of prone ventilation was shown to improve oxygenation but did not confirm a reduction in mortality. Subsequently, several other investigators evaluated the effects of prone ventilation using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with variable results in different groups of patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Some of these trials were conducted with physiological parameters as end points and others with mortality/survival as the end point. There is no systematic review after the publication of these RCTs.
The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of prone position ventilation in reducing mortality in adult patients with ALI and ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. The secondary objectives were to assess the impact of prone position ventilation on oxygenation (Pao2: Fio2), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, adverse effects (such as loss of intravenous or arterial lines, development of pressure sores, and endotracheal [ET] tube complications including selective intubation, obstruction, or dislodgement) and cost-effectiveness of managing adult patients with severe respiratory failure using prone ventilation.
Section snippets
Identification of studies
The following databases were searched for reports of RCTs using prone ventilation in adult patients with acute severe respiratory failure: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Registry of Current Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment database. The search was performed using the exploded medical subject headings and text words: ‘adult respiratory distress syndrome’ or
Description of studies
A total of 2927 article titles were screened during the search process. Of these articles, only 5 studies [5], [6], [7], [9], [10] met the inclusion criteria. The reasons for exclusion of the rest of the studies are presented in Fig. 1. General characteristics and quality assessment of the included studies are presented in Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the study population of individual studies are presented in Table 2. Of the 5 RCTs included, the studies by Gattinoni et al [5],
Discussion
This is the first systematic review of the use of prone ventilation in patients with ALI and ARDS. This review allowed performing meta-analysis of the effects of prone ventilation on mortality, oxygenation, duration of ICU stay, VAP, pressure sores, and ET tube complications. The pooled results reveal that prone ventilation significantly improved oxygenation. Among the other variables assessed mortality, ICU stay, VAP, and ET tube complications were not significantly affected by prone
References (17)
- et al.
Hospital survival rates of patients with acute respiratory failure in modern respiratory intensive care units. An international, multicenter, prospective survey
Chest
(1995) - et al.
Prone positioning and low-volume pressure-limited ventilation improve survival in patients with severe ARDS
Chest
(1997) - et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Control Clin Trials
(1996) - et al.
Prone position reduces lung stress and strain in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome
Eur Respir J
(2005) - et al.
Effect of the prone position on patients with hydrostatic pulmonary edema compared with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
(2000) - et al.
Effect of prone positioning on the survival of patients with acute respiratory failure
N Engl J Med
(2001) - et al.
Prone positioning improves oxygenation in post-traumatic lung injury—a prospective randomized trial
J Trauma
(2005) - et al.
Effects of systematic prone positioning in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial
JAMA
(2004)
Cited by (42)
The effect of prone positioning on pressure injury incidence in adult intensive care unit patients: A meta-review of systematic reviews
2022, Australian Critical CareCitation Excerpt :This left 10 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Ten systematic reviews, published from 2008 to 2017, all of which included meta-analyses,32–41 were included in this meta-review. Table 1 provides a summary of the review characteristics.
Prone Positioning in Cardiac Surgery: For Many, But Not for Everyone
2016, Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Despite theoretical pathophysiological benefits,9,10 prone positioning is not yet extensively used in most intensive care units worldwide, also because of contradictory results across studies. Several multicenter randomized trials and meta-analyses2,3,11-21 have attempted to determine whether this practice confers clinical benefits to patients with acute respiratory failure. A systematic review, published in 2010,13 concluded that prone ventilation should not be routinely used in all patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, but may be considered for severely hypoxemic patients.
Bacterial sepsis after living donor liver transplantation: The impact of early enteral nutrition
2012, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsCitation Excerpt :In comparison, the situation is much more serious for pulmonary bacterial sepsis. This is because the infected respiratory content can be removed only by physical or respiratory therapy, although antibiotics can be delivered more effectively to the lung than to abdominal infection.18,19 Because of the difficulties in treating pulmonary sepsis, in 2008, we started to apply prone-positioned respiratory therapy for patients with atelectasis or pneumonia.
- ☆
None of the authors have commercial association or financial involvement that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with this article.