No abstract

Rationale and objectivesProne positioning as a complement to oxygen therapy to treat hypoxemia in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia in spontaneously breathing patients has been widely adopted, despite a lack of evidence for its benefit.To test the hypothesis that a simple incentive to self-prone for a maximum of 12 h per day would decrease oxygen needs in patients admitted to the ward for COVID-19 pneumonia on low-flow oxygen therapy.MethodsTwenty-seven patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Geneva University Hospitals were included in the study. Ten patients were randomised to self-prone positioning and 17 to usual care.Measurements and Main ResultsOxygen needs assessed by oxygen flow on nasal cannula at inclusion were similar between groups. Twenty-four hours after starting the intervention, the median oxygen flow was 1.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.1–2.9) in the prone position group and 2.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.5–3.0) in the control group (p=0.507). Median oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio was 390 (interquartile range, 300–432) in the prone position group and 336 (interquartile range, 294–422) in the control group (p=0.633). One patient from the intervention group who did not self-prone was transferred to the high-dependency unit. Self-prone positioning was easy to implement. The intervention was well tolerated and only mild side-effects were reported.ConclusionsSelf-prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring low-flow oxygen therapy resulted in a clinically meaningful reduction of oxygen flow, but without reaching statistical significance.

Purpose of review Prone position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing (’awake prone’). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS. Recent findings A literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting. Summary The final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.

No abstract