Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

IMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H 2 O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H 2 O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with SpO 2 Յ92% for >1 minute). RESULTS Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, −2.3% [95% CI, −5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P = .23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, −8.6% [95% CI, −11.1% to 6.1%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications.

Introduction: Treatment for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) comprises cytoreductive surgery combined with chemotherapy. Multimodal prehabilitation programmes before surgery have demonstrated efficacy in postoperative outcomes in non-gynaecological surgeries. However, the viability and effects of these programmes on patients with AOC are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and postoperative impact of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in AOC patients undergoing surgery. Methods: This single-centre, before-and-after intervention pilot study included 34 patients in two cohorts: the prehabilitation cohort prospectively included 15 patients receiving supervised exercise, nutritional optimisation, and psychological preparation from December 2019 to January 2021; the control cohort included 19 consecutive patients between January 2018 and November 2019. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines were followed. Results: The overall adherence to the multimodal prehabilitation programme was 80%, with 86.7% adherence to exercise training, 100% adherence to nutritional optimisation, and 80% adherence to psychological preparation. The median hospital stay was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (5 (IQR, 4–6) vs. 7 days (IQR, 5–9) in the control cohort, p = 0.04). Differences in postoperative complications using the comprehensive complication index (CCI) were not significant (CCI score: 9.3 (SD 12.12) in the prehabilitation cohort vs. 16.61 (SD 16.89) in the control cohort, p = 0.08). The median time to starting chemotherapy was shorter in the prehabilitation cohort (25 (IQR, 23–25) vs. 35 days (IQR, 28–45) in the control cohort, p = 0.03). Conclusions: A multimodal prehabilitation programme before cytoreductive surgery is feasible in AOC patients with no major adverse effects, and results in significantly shorter hospital stays and time to starting chemotherapy.

Background: We aimed to examine whether using a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO 2 ) in the context of an individualised intra-and postoperative open-lung ventilation approach could decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. Methods: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in a network of 21 university hospitals from June 6, 2017 to July 19, 2018. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to receive a high (0.80) or conventional (0.3) FIO 2 during the intraoperative period and during the first 3 postoperative hours. All patients were mechanically ventilated with an open-lung strategy, which included recruitment manoeuvres and individualised positive end-expiratory pressure for the best respiratory-system compliance, and individualised continuous postoperative airway pressure for adequate peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI within the first 7 postoperative days. The secondary outcomes were composites of systemic complications, length of intensive care and hospital stay, and 6-month mortality. Results: We enrolled 740 subjects: 371 in the high FIO 2 group and 369 in the low FIO 2 group. Data from 717 subjects were available for final analysis. The rate of SSI during the first postoperative week did not differ between high (8.9%) and low (9.4%) FIO 2 groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59e1.50; P¼0.90]). Secondary outcomes, such as atelectasis (7.7% vs 9.8%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.48e1.25; P¼0.38) and myocardial ischaemia (0.6% [n¼2] vs 0% [n¼0]; P¼0.47) did not differ between groups. Conclusions: An oxygenation strategy using high FIO 2 compared with conventional FIO 2 did not reduce postoperative SSIs in abdominal surgery. No differences in secondary outcomes or adverse events were found. Clinical trial registration: NCT02776046.

ImportanceColorectal surgery is associated with substantial morbidity rates and a lowered functional capacity. Optimization of the patient’s condition in the weeks prior to surgery may attenuate these unfavorable sequelae.ObjectiveTo determine whether multimodal prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery can reduce postoperative complications and enhance functional recovery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe PREHAB randomized clinical trial was an international, multicenter trial conducted in teaching hospitals with implemented enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Adult patients with nonmetastasized colorectal cancer were assessed for eligibility and randomized to either prehabilitation or standard care. Both arms received standard perioperative care. Patients were enrolled from June 2017 to December 2020, and follow-up was completed in December 2021. However, this trial was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.InterventionsThe 4-week in-hospital supervised multimodal prehabilitation program consisted of a high-intensity exercise program 3 times per week, a nutritional intervention, psychological support, and a smoking cessation program when needed.Main Outcomes and MeasuresComprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score, number of patients with CCI score more than 20, and improved walking capacity expressed as the 6-minute walking distance 4 weeks postoperatively.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat population of 251 participants (median [IQR] age, 69 [60-76] years; 138 [55%] male), 206 (82%) had tumors located in the colon and 234 (93%) underwent laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted surgery. The number of severe complications (CCI score &amp;gt;20) was significantly lower favoring prehabilitation compared with standard care (21 of 123 [17.1%] vs 38 of 128 [29.7%]; odds ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02). Participants in prehabilitation encountered fewer medical complications (eg, respiratory) compared with participants receiving standard care (19 of 123 [15.4%] vs 35 of 128 [27.3%]; odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.89]; P = .02). Four weeks after surgery, 6-minute walking distance did not differ significantly between groups when compared with baseline (mean difference prehabilitation vs standard care 15.6 m [95% CI, −1.4 to 32.6]; P = .07). Secondary parameters of functional capacity in the postoperative period generally favored prehabilitation compared with standard care.Conclusions and RelevanceThis PREHAB trial demonstrates the benefit of a multimodal prehabilitation program before colorectal cancer surgery as reflected by fewer severe and medical complications postoperatively and an optimized postoperative recovery compared with standard care.Trial Registrationtrialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5947

No abstract

Background: Multimodal prehabilitation is a preoperative intervention with the objective to enhance cancer patients' functional status which has been showed to reduce both postoperative morbidity and hospital length of stay in digestive oncologic surgery. However, in lung cancer surgery patients further studies with higher methodological quality are needed to clarify the benefits of prehabilitation. The main aim of the current protocol is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multimodal prehabilitation program supported by information and communication technologies in moderate-to-high risk lung cancer patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Methods: A Quadruple Aim approach will be adopted, assessing the prehabilitation program at the following levels: i) Patients' and professionals' experience outcomes (by means of standardized questionnaires, focus groups and structured interviews); ii) Population health-based outcomes (e.g. hospital length of stay, number and severity of postoperative complications, peak oxygen uptake and levels of systemic inflammation); and, iii) Healthcare costs. Discussion: This study protocol should contribute not only to increase the scientific basis on prehabilitation but also to detect the main factors modulating service adoption.

No abstract