Aim
To identify and summarize the available science on prone resuscitation. To determine the value of undertaking a systematic review on this topic; and to identify knowledge gaps to aid future research, education and guidelines.
Methods
This review was guided by specific methodological framework and reporting items (PRISMA-ScR). We included studies, cases and grey literature regarding prone position and CPR/cardiac arrest. The databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Google Scholar. Expanded grey literature searching included internet search engine, targeted websites and social media.
Results
Of 453 identified studies, 24 (5%) studies met our inclusion criteria. There were four prone resuscitation-relevant studies examining: blood and tidal volumes generated by prone compressions; prone compression quality metrics on a manikin; and chest computed tomography scans for compression landmarking. Twenty case reports/series described the resuscitation of 25 prone patients. Prone compression quality was assessed by invasive blood pressure monitoring, exhaled carbon dioxide and pulse palpation. Recommended compression location was zero-to-two vertebral segments below the scapulae. Twenty of 25 cases (80%) survived prone resuscitation, although few cases reported long term outcome (neurological status at hospital discharge). Seven cases described full neurological recovery.
Conclusion
This scoping review did not identify sufficient evidence to justify a systematic review or modified resuscitation guidelines. It remains reasonable to initiate resuscitation in the prone position if turning the patient supine would lead to delays or risk to providers or patients. Prone resuscitation quality can be judged using end-tidal CO
2
, and arterial pressure tracing, with patients turned supine if insufficient.
Aim
To identify and summarize the available science on prone resuscitation. To determine the value of undertaking a systematic review on this topic; and to identify knowledge gaps to aid future research, education and guidelines.
Methods
This review was guided by specific methodological framework and reporting items (PRISMA-ScR). We included studies, cases and grey literature regarding prone position and CPR/cardiac arrest. The databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Google Scholar. Expanded grey literature searching included internet search engine, targeted websites and social media.
Results
Of 453 identified studies, 24 (5%) studies met our inclusion criteria. There were four prone resuscitation-relevant studies examining: blood and tidal volumes generated by prone compressions; prone compression quality metrics on a manikin; and chest computed tomography scans for compression landmarking. Twenty case reports/series described the resuscitation of 25 prone patients. Prone compression quality was assessed by invasive blood pressure monitoring, exhaled carbon dioxide and pulse palpation. Recommended compression location was zero-to-two vertebral segments below the scapulae. Twenty of 25 cases (80%) survived prone resuscitation, although few cases reported long term outcome (neurological status at hospital discharge). Seven cases described full neurological recovery.
Conclusion
This scoping review did not identify sufficient evidence to justify a systematic review or modified resuscitation guidelines. It remains reasonable to initiate resuscitation in the prone position if turning the patient supine would lead to delays or risk to providers or patients. Prone resuscitation quality can be judged using end-tidal CO
2
, and arterial pressure tracing, with patients turned supine if insufficient.
“…We found no RCT comparing prone to standard supine CPR. Three of the included studies [ [9] , [10] , [11] ] had a nonrandomized design and 31 were case reports [ [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] ]. In this section, the included nonrandomized studies are described; a complete description of all the studies, including case reports, is provided with details in Table 1 .…”
Introduction: The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 brought to the fore prone positioning as treatment for patients with acute respiratory failure. With the increasing number of patients in prone position, both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated, cardiac arrest in this position is more likely to occur. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position ('reverse CPR') and knowledge or research gaps to be further evaluated. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on 10th May 2020 in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nfuh9). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) for simulation, pre-clinical and clinical studies on reverse CPR until 31st May 2020. Results: We included 1 study on manikins, 31 case reports (29 during surgery requiring prone position) and 2 nonrandomized studies describing reverse CPR. No studies were found regarding reverse CPR in patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: Even if the algorithms provided by the guidelines on basic and advanced life support remain valid in cardiac arrest in prone position, differences exist in the methods of performing CPR. There is no clear evidence of superiority in terms of effectiveness of reverse compared to supine CPR in patients with cardiac arrest occurring in prone position. The quality of evidence is low and knowledge gaps (e.g. protocols, training of healthcare personnel, devices for skill acquisition) should be fulfilled by further research. Meanwhile, a case-by-case evaluation of patient and setting characteristics should guide the decision on how to start CPR in such cases.
Aim
To perform a systematic review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or defibrillation in the prone position compared to turning the patient supine prior to starting CPR and/or defibrillation.
Methods
The search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, and medRxiv on December 9, 2020. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest while in the prone position. The outcomes included arterial blood pressure and end-tidal capnography during CPR, time to start CPR and defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, survival and survival with favorable neurologic outcome to discharge, 30 days or longer. ROBINS-I was performed to assess risk of bias for observational studies.
Results
The systematic review identified 29 case reports (32 individual cases), two prospective observational studies, and two simulation studies. The observational studies enrolled 17 patients who were declared dead in the supine position and reported higher mean systolic blood pressure from CPR in prone position (72 mmHg vs 48 mmHg,
p
< 0.005; 79 ± 20 mmHg vs 55 ± 20 mmHg,
p
= 0.028). One simulation study reported a faster time to defibrillation in the prone position. Return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days were reported in adult and paediatric case reports. Critical risk of bias limited our ability to perform pooled analyses.
Conclusions
We identified a limited number of observational studies and case reports comparing prone versus supine CPR and/or defibrillation. Prone CPR may be a reasonable option if immediate supination is difficult or poses unacceptable risks to the patient.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
