Abstract
Objectives
This study was planned to compare the prone position and non-prone position groups and to evaluate arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) status before, during, and after patients were brought back to the non-prone position.
Design
This study is a randomized controlled trial with a parallel-group design and a 1:1 allocation ratio. A block randomisation method was used to ensure balanced allocation between two groups.
Setting
The research was conducted in the 14-bed and 26-bed general ICUs of two private hospitals on the European side of Istanbul.
Participants
The 94 eligible participants were randomly divided into two groups. 52 participants were assigned to the prone position group, while 42 participants were assigned to the non-prone position group, which served as the control group. In the end, 40 participants were in each group.
Intervention
The intervention involved placing patients in the prone position and monitoring their arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values, and VAP status at multiple stages: before, during, and after returning them to the non-prone position. Each patient was followed for a minimum of 5 days.
Results
The majority of the participants were male (51.2%) and aged 45–64 (48.8%). The comparison of experimental and control groups indicated statistically significant difference in saturation, FiO₂, inspiratory-expiratory tidal volume, and blood gas levels of the patients in the treatment group (p = 0.001; p < 0.01).
Conclusions
The change in the experimental group was greater than in the control group. In conclusion, the mechanical ventilator parameters and blood gas levels of the patients in the treatment group were better than those of the patients in the control group. It is recommended as an effective practice in patients receiving prone position mechanical ventilation (MV).
Clinical trial registration number and registration date
: NCT05760716/ March 6, 2023 (This trial was registered retrospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration Number: NCT05760716) after its completion due to demanded revisions. The integrity of the data and adherence to the study protocol were ensured throughout. The trial adhered to ethical standards (ethics committee approval, informed consent) even if it was not registered prospectively).
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-025-02817-3.
Keywords: Intensive care, Prone position, Mechanical ventilators, Arterial blood gas, Ventilator-associated pneumonia
Background
Patients on MV (MV) are prone to nosocomial infections due to immobility. Changing the patient’s position frequently is necessary to prevent the consequences of inactivity. Studies suggest that placing patients in a prone position may improve oxygenation in those receiving MV. Prone position was first employed in MV in the 1970s, to increase lung capacity and improve oxygenation in acute lung failure [1]. The prone positioning maneuver involves placing a patient on their abdomen (face down) instead of the traditional supine (back) position, commonly used in intensive care settings for patients requiring MV. When in the prone position, gravity assists in opening the dorsal (posterior) lung regions, which are often under-ventilated when the patient is lying on their back. As a result, this positioning can help recruit collapsed alveoli, enhance ventilation-perfusion matching, and reduce the work of breathing [2]. Miller [3] first highlighted the benefits of prone positioning, citing improved lung expansion and oxygenation. This position enhances ventilation and blood circulation coordination, increases exhalation volume, and intervenes in rib cage volume changes [4]. Guerin et al. [5] found that oxygenation in arterial blood increased from 23 to 34% during the first three days in the prone position. However, a 2016 study by Haddam et al. [6] reported no significant impact on patient oxygenation. Research has shown that the prone position is protective against preventing ventilator-induced lung injury, and it has also been found to increase PaO2/FiO₂ in 70% of intensive care patients with severe hypoxemia who receive MV support [4, 6–8]. In patients who have undergone prone position, the decrease in pressure on the lungs and the fact that the lung perfusion is more homogeneous are effective in protecting the lung [9, 10].
Prone positioning improves oxygenation and ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and is associated with better morbidity and mortality outcomes. A systematic review indicated that it likely reduces mortality in severe ARDS when applied for at least 12 h daily [11]. The PROSEVA trial showed that prolonged prone positioning significantly decreased both 28-day and 90-day mortality rates [5]. Additionally, it helps prevent ventilator-induced lung injury by promoting uniform alveolar ventilation and reducing overdistension [2]. These findings emphasize the importance of prone positioning as a standard care intervention in severe respiratory failure, improving long-term outcomes and lowering mortality rates.
Giving a position is one of the practices that nurses do by using their professional knowledge and skills. The positive effects of the position given to patients in intensive care on treatment and care are indicated. However, when the literature is examined, it is seen that there are not many studies on what are the position practices in intensive care patients in our country and how they affect health, the guiding nursing guidelines to be used in position change are missing and clinical studies are insufficient. However, nurses continue to perform key roles in the follow-up and treatment of patients who are prone under MV therapy to provide the best clinical outcomes from continuous evaluation of patients to the realization of care practices [4, 6, 7].
Bringing intensive care patients to the prone position; endotracheal tube obstruction includes the risk of serious complications such as unplanned extubations, stones and bradyarrhythmias, loss of venous and arterial access, cardiac arrest, and the development of pressure ulcers in the anterior body surface areas [12, 13]. Safely changing positions for a patient requires a multidisciplinary approach and a team of trained professional clinicians, including respiratory therapists, nurses and a doctor. Prone positioning is evaluated on an individual basis. Although it is beneficial in some settings, not all patients get better, and some may get worse [1, 4, 6–8].
Complete care of patients receiving MV support is an important part of intensive care nursing. Therefore, in addition to the use of MV, a supportive intervention plan should be designed to improve the quality of oxygenation and other care measures for patients, control the effect of treatment, and prevent the side effects of MV. Nowadays, since evidence-based nursing is given importance, it is necessary to conduct a lot of research on the effects, effectiveness and possible dangers of prone position for the patient in order to use nursing measures such as prone position effectively in ICUs with unstable and semi-stable hemodynamic patients.
Prone positioning has been associated with improved oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients. However, its effect on VAP incidence is less clear. Some studies suggest that prone positioning may reduce VAP by enhancing secretion drainage and reducing aspiration risk. Conversely, other research indicates no significant impact on VAP rates. Therefore, further investigation is needed to clarify the relationship between prone positioning and VAP incidence [14, 15].
Previous studies, including the PROSEVA trial, have highlighted the mortality benefits of prone positioning in severe ARDS patients [5]. However, the effects on ventilator parameters, arterial blood gas levels, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are not well understood. Existing research often focuses on short-term oxygenation improvements, overlooking a comprehensive evaluation of respiratory mechanics and infection outcomes. This study examines the effects of prone positioning on a diverse group of ventilated patients, rather than just those with severe ARDS. By including all eligible patients, it aims to provide a broader understanding of the intervention’s impact, making the findings more relevant to real-world ICU populations.
This study was planned as a randomized controlled experimental study to compare the prone position and non-prone position groups and to determine the effect of prone position by evaluating arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values and VAP status before, during, and after patients were brought back to the non-prone position.
Methods
Design and setting
This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of prone positioning versus non-prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients in a clinical setting. The research was conducted between June and December 2021 in the 14-bed and 26-bed general ICUs of two private hospitals on the European side of Istanbul.
This study is a randomized controlled trial with a parallel-group design and a 1:1 allocation ratio and was designed and reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines to ensure transparency and rigor in the methodology and presentation of results.
Outcomes of the study
The primary outcome of this study is the change in arterial blood gas values after prone positioning compared to non-prone positioning.
Secondary outcome include changes in mechanical ventilator parameters (PEEP, tidal volume) and the incidence of VAP.
Hypotheses of the research
H0
There is no significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of MV values, blood gas values and the development of VAP.
H1
Mechanical ventilator mode values of the experimental group will be better than the control group.
H2
Blood gas results of the experimental group will be better than the control group.
H3
The rate of VAP development in the experimental group will be less than the control group.
Participants and randomization
The sample size calculation is based on a hypothesized treatment effect of a 20% improvement in PaO2/FiO₂ ratio for the prone positioning group compared to the non-prone group. The expected standard deviation is 10, and we aim for 80% power with a 0.05 alpha level. Studies should have 80% power, and the power of the study is expressed as “1-β (β = II type error probability)”. Using this, the required sample size per group is calculated as 30, based on the power analysis that was conducted using the “G*Power (v3.1.7) program.
Inclusion criteria
18 years of age or older,
Receiving respiratory support with a mechanical ventilator in the ICU,
A negative COVID-19 test,
Consent given by the first-degree relative.
Exclusion criteria
Under 18 years of age,
Diagnosis of VAP before ICU admission,
Positive COVID-19 test,
Having an obstacle (obesity, pregnancy, anterior chest wall surgery, advanced heart failure, etc.) to the prone position.
Lack of consent to participate in the study by the first-degree relative.
A total of 186 participants were initially assessed for eligibility. 92 participants excluded as they fulfil the exclusion criteria. 94 participants met the inclusion criteria. Eligible participants were approached, and written informed consent was obtained from the first-degree relatives before randomization. Following the consent process, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (prone position group and non-prone position group). A block randomisation method was used to ensure balanced allocation between two groups, considering the high attrition rate expected in this critically ill population. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated with variable block sizes to ensure balance, and allocation was performed after obtaining informed consent from the participants’ first-degree relatives. This approach ensured equal representation of participants in each group, even with the anticipated loss to follow-up. A health professional that independent of the trial conduct created the randomisation sequence to prevent bias. Enrollment was conducted by trained staff, ensuring that the process adhered to inclusion and exclusion criteria. A health professional separate from the enrollment process assigned participants to groups based on the concealed allocation sequence. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
Prone Position Group: This group received the intervention of prone positioning, which involves placing the patient face-down with support.
Non-Prone Position (Control) Group: The control group received standard care and was managed in various non-prone (supine and lateral) positions as per the clinical protocol. These positions included supine (face-up), semi-recumbent, and lateral positions, which are commonly used in intensive care settings for mechanically ventilated patients.
Attrition and follow-up
Given the anticipated attrition rate in this high-risk population, we recruited additional participants beyond the initial target of 30 per group to ensure an adequate sample size at the Day 10 assessment. This strategy aimed to mitigate the impact of patient attrition (including mortality and loss to follow-up) on the statistical power of the study. 52 participants were assigned to the prone position group, while 42 participants were assigned to the non-prone position group, which served as the control group and received standard care. During the follow-up period:
In the prone position group, 8 participants were lost to follow-up (5 due to transfering to another hospital and 3 due to mortality), and 4 declined participation after randomization.
In the non-prone position group, 1 participant was lost to follow-up (due to mortality), and 1 declined participation after randomization.
Ultimately, 40 participants in each group completed the study and were included in the final analysis. This recruitment approach was consistent with our ethics approval, which accounted for potential dropouts. We anticipated a high attrition rate due to the critical nature of the study population. As such, additional participants were recruited to maintain the planned sample size at Day 10.
Blinding
Due to the nature of the intervention (prone vs. non-prone positioning), blinding of participants and clinicians was not feasible, as they would be aware of the intervention being administered. However, outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignments to reduce potential bias during data collection and analysis (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Participants’ flow chart
Intervention
The intervention involved placing patients in the prone position and monitoring their arterial blood gas results, mechanical ventilator values (inspiratory tidal and expiratory tidal volumes etc.) and VAP status at multiple stages: before, during, and after returning them to the non-prone position.
The arterial blood gas values assessed in this study included:
pH
Indicates the acidity or alkalinity of the blood.
PaO₂ (mmHg)
Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, reflecting oxygenation levels.
PaCO₂ (mmHg)
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood, indicating ventilation efficiency.
SaO₂ (%)
Arterial oxygen saturation, representing the percentage of hemoglobin bound with oxygen.
The MV values assessed in this study. MV values refer to the parameters monitored during MV to evaluate the effectiveness of respiratory support and assess lung function. These values typically include:
FiO₂ (%)
Fraction of inspired oxygen.
PEEP (cmH₂O)
Positive end-expiratory pressure.
Inspiratory tidal volume (mL)
Volume of air delivered to the lungs with each breath.
Expiratory tidal volume (mL)
Volume of air exhaled after each breath.
PaO₂ (mmHg)
Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood.
PaCO₂ (mmHg)
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood.
SaO₂ (%)
Arterial oxygen saturation.
The ventilation mode was either volume-controlled or pressure-controlled, based on the needs of the patients. Importantly, no changes were made to the ventilator modes throughout the intervention. The respiratory rate and PEEP levels were kept constant, with only minimal adjustments made to meet clinical needs in cases of hemodynamic instability.
By analyzing inspiratory tidal and expiratory tidal volumes, we monitored the effectiveness of MV, detect ventilator-associated complications, and evaluate the impact of interventions like prone positioning on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange.
The level of sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and the need for deep sedation was minimized, with neuromuscular blockers used only in limited circumstances.
Prone positioning protocol
Patients in the prone position group were placed in the prone position once daily. During patient preparation, the eyes, skin areas at pressure points, and the position of the endotracheal tube were carefully maintained, and support from a respiratory therapist and nurse was provided during position changes. The duration of each session was set between 4 and 6 h, depending on the patient’s clinical tolerance. The length of time spent in the prone position was adjusted based on hemodynamic stability, oxygenation status, and ventilator parameters. Each patient was followed for a minimum of 5 days, during which prone positioning was administered as needed based on clinical response. The decision to continue or discontinue prone sessions was individualized according to the patient’s ongoing clinical condition and response to treatment.
Ethical approval
The research was conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval and institutional permission were obtained from the…… Ethics Committee (E-69396709-050.06.04-172992 and Decision No: 2). Informed consent was also obtained from the participants in order to evaluate the ethical suitability of the research. Any discrepancies from the original protocol, such as attrition and participant flow, have been reported and addressed accordingly.
Data collection tools
Data collection was carried out using a face-to-face questionnaire. Four main questionnaires were used for the current study.
Patient identification form
With the patient follow-up chart, the vital signs of intensive care patients receiving mechanical ventilator support, ventilator mode values, blood gas values and ETA/BAL culture results were followed up for at least 5 and maximum 10 days. In the first part, questions about the sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, educational status and occupation) of the patients were included, while in the second part, questions about the disease, treatment and habits (chronic diseases, smoking and alcohol use, drugs used, body mass index, diagnosis of ICU, intubation-reintubation dates) were included.
PP practice follow-up chart
This chart has been prepared by evidence-based guidelines and researchers using similar studies on this subject [16–25].
Nursing initiative practice follow-up chart for VAP
This chart has been prepared by evidence-based guidelines and researchers using similar studies on this subject [26–31].
Clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS)
CPIS was defined by Pugin et al. [32] as a guiding scoring system in the diagnosis of VAP by evaluating a total of 12 points. CPIS score; leukocyte count, body temperature, endotracheal aspirate (ETA)/microbiological culture results, tracheal secretion amount and character, PaO2/FiO₂ ratio and the presence of pulmonary infiltration examined seven clinical parameters. A score of 6 or more suggests VAP [33].
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed using NCSS 2007 software. The Independent Samples t-test was used for normally distributed quantitative data, while the Mann-Whitney U test was employed for non-normally distributed data. For paired measurements within the same group, the Paired Samples t-test applied to normally distributed data and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for non-normally distributed data. The Repeated Measures ANOVA was used for repeated measurements within groups, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests. The Friedman test applied for non-parametric repeated measures, with post-hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni-Dunn test. For categorical data, the Pearson Chi-Square test compared independent groups. The Fisher’s Exact test was used for low expected frequencies, and the McNemar test evaluated changes in paired categorical data. A significance level of p < 0.05 was set for all tests.
Results
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants were evaluated. Descriptive and clinical features were similar by group (Table 1).
Table 1.
Evaluation of descriptive and clinical features according to groups
| Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 18–29 | 2 (5.0) | 0 (0) | a 0.304 |
| 30–44 | 5 (12.5) | 3 (7.5) | ||
| 45–64 | 21 (52.5) | 18 (45.0) | ||
| 65–79 | 11 (27.5) | 15 (37.5) | ||
| ≥ 80 | 1 (2.5) | 4 (10.0) | ||
| Gender | Female | 19 (47.5) | 20 (50.0) | b 0.823 |
| Male | 21 (52.5) | 20 (50.0) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | < 18 kg/m2 | 3 (7.5) | 5 (12.5) | a 0.257 |
| 18.5–25 kg/m2 | 30 (75.0) | 23 (57.5) | ||
| 25–29 kg/m2 | 7 (17.5) | 12 (30.0) | ||
| Smoking | Yes | 20 (50.0) | 16 (40.0) | a 0.590 |
| No | 17 (42.5) | 22 (55.0) | ||
| Quit smoking | 3 (7.5) | 2 (5.0) | ||
|
Amount of smoking (unit/day) (n = 36) |
Min-Max (Median) | 18–30 (20) | 20–30 (20) | d 0.403 |
| Mean ± Sd | 24.11 ± 5.18 | 22.00 ± 3.50 | ||
|
Smoking duration (years) (n = 36) |
Min-Max (Median) | 8–35 (21.5) | 15–30 (25) | d 0.227 |
| Mean ± Sd | 22.32 ± 5.71 | 24.58 ± 5.82 | ||
| Alcohol use | Yes | 4 (10.0) | 8 (20.0) | b 0.210 |
| No | 36 (90.0) | 32 (80.0) | ||
| Chronic disease status | Yes | 37 (92.5) | 38 (95.0) | c 1.000 |
| No | 3 (7.5) | 2 (5.0) | ||
| Intensive care hospitalization diagnosis | Respiratory Failure | 24 (60.0) | 12 (30.0) | a 0.080 |
| COPD Exacerbation | 4 (10.0) | 6 (15.0) | ||
| Lung CA | 2 (5.0) | 6 (15.0) | ||
| Pneumonia | 1 (2.5) | 3 (7.5) | ||
| Other | 9 (22.5) | 13 (32.5) | ||
| Intensive care hospital stay (days) | Min-Max (Median) | 5–10 (5) | 5–10 (5) | d 0.691 |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.57 ± 1.07 | 5.60 ± 1.01 | ||
| APACHE II Score | 21.4 ± 5.2 | 22.1 ± 4.8 | d 0.628 | |
| P/F Ratio (admission) | 180.5 ± 25.4 | 172.8 ± 20.7 | d 0.314 | |
| Baseline Sedation Score (RASS) | -2.3 ± 0.5 | -2.5 ± 0.6 | d 0.210 | |
| Type of Sedative Used (%) | Midazolam (40%). Propofol (60%) | Midazolam (50%). Propofol (50%) | ||
| Total Sedative Dose (mg/day) | 35 ± 10 | 32 ± 9 | d 0.150 |
∎Multiple selections were made The number of reintubations could not be evaluated because of insufficient. a Fisher Freeman Halton Test b Pearson Chi-Square Test c Fisher’s Exact Test d Mann Whitney U Test
There were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure measurements between the groups on Days 1, 2, 3, and 4 before and after prone positioning. However, after prone positioning on Day 5, a statistically significant difference was observed, with the experimental group showing higher measurements than the control group (Experimental: 132.5 ± 5.6 mmHg, Control: 128.3 ± 4.9 mmHg, p = 0.025). Similarly, diastolic blood pressure measurements before prone positioning on Day 5 were significantly higher in the experimental group compared to the control group (Experimental: 84.6 ± 3.2 mmHg, Control: 80.9 ± 2.8 mmHg, p = 0.040).
Heart rate changes showed statistical significance on Day 1 and Day 3 (Day 1: p = 0.015, Day 3: p = 0.020), with greater increases in the experimental group. Furthermore, a significant difference was found in the change from the first to the last measurements between groups (Experimental: +15.3 ± 2.1 bpm, Control: +9.8 ± 1.9 bpm, p = 0.001) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Evaluation of vital signs according to groups
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | Heart rate | Saturation (%) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | ||||||
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | ||||||||||
| 1st day | Pre-prone | 127.63 ± 22.06 (130) | Non-prone | 133.58 ± 25.91 (134) | e 0.272 | 74.68 ± 12.01 (75.5) | Non-prone | 76.15 ± 13.27 (80) | e 0.604 | 90.58 ± 14.35 (89) | Non-prone | 88.83 ± 14.15 (90) | e 0.584 | 85.45 ± 4.78 (88) | Non-prone | 90.05 ± 3.23 (90) | d 0.001** |
| Post prone | 131.25 ± 19.21 (133) | Non-prone | 134.00 ± 26.58 (136.5) | e 0.598 | 76.45 ± 11.28 (80.5) | Non-prone | 77.38 ± 14.31 (82.5) | e 0.749 | 94.33 ± 15.05 (89) | Non-prone | 91.63 ± 14.01 (91.5) | e 0.409 | 88.13 ± 5.06 (90) | Non-prone | 89.88 ± 3.15 (90) | d 0.220 | |
| h 0.188 | f 0.517 | h 0.348 | f 0.024* | h 0.015* | f 0.011* | i 0.001** | g 0.289 | ||||||||||
| 2nd day | Pre-prone | 125.00 ± 23.55 (131.5) | Non-prone | 130.68 ± 28.14 (133) | e 0.331 | 72.38 ± 11.84 (72) | Non-prone | 75.53 ± 15.42 (80) | e 0.309 | 94.35 ± 15.05 (92.5) | Non-prone | 92.83 ± 15.38 (90.5) | e 0.655 | 86.55 ± 4.16 (87) | Non-prone | 90.35 ± 2.93 (90.5) | d 0.001** |
| Post prone | 123.43 ± 22.87 (125.5) | Non-prone | 128.88 ± 27.98 (124) | e 0.343 | 76.20 ± 11.49 (76.5) | Non-prone | 74.75 ± 14.70 (80) | e 0.625 | 96.13 ± 17.43 (93) | Non-prone | 95.55 ± 17.17 (94) | e 0.882 | 89.00 ± 4.18 (90) | Non-prone | 90.28 ± 3.09 (90) | d 0.257 | |
| h 0.610 | f 0.167 | h 0.003** | f 0.449 | h 0.318 | f 0.003** | i 0.001** | g 0.719 | ||||||||||
|
3rd day |
Pre-prone | 126.53 ± 20.40 (127.5) | Non-prone | 124.80 ± 26.97 (131.5) | e 0.748 | 75.35 ± 10.46 (74.5) | Non-prone | 71.43 ± 14.12 (72.5) | e 0.162 | 92.73 ± 13.08 (90.5) | Non-prone | 96.13 ± 18.75 (94.5) | e 0.350 | 88.08 ± 3.50 (89) | Non-prone | 90.25 ± 2.91 (90) | d 0.012* |
| Post prone | 127.30 ± 19.61 (133) | Non-prone | 125.40 ± 26.74 (133.5) | e 0.718 | 74.68 ± 11.18 (77) | Non-prone | 72.48 ± 14.84 (73) | e 0.456 | 96.20 ± 16.16 (92.5) | Non-prone | 97.23 ± 19.46 (95) | e 0.798 | 90.25 ± 3.85 (90) | Non-prone | 90.13 ± 3.12 (90) | d 0.759 | |
| h 0.638 | f 0.552 | h 0.518 | f 0.145 | h 0.024* | f 0.094 | i 0.001** | g 0.456 | ||||||||||
|
4th day |
Pre-prone | 126.33 ± 18.57 (130.5) | Non-prone | 125.28 ± 28.72 (135.5) | e 0.847 | 75.00 ± 12.02 (76.5) | Non-prone | 73.13 ± 15.49 (78.5) | e 0.547 | 92.00 ± 15.98 (91) | Non-prone | 97.63 ± 18.10 (93.5) | e 0.145 | 88.83 ± 3.09 (90) | Non-prone | 90.38 ± 3.22 (90) | d 0.047* |
| Post prone | 127.48 ± 19.22 (132) | Non-prone | 124.88 ± 28.67 (130) | e 0.635 | 76.35 ± 11.11 (80) | Non-prone | 73.50 ± 15.79 (77) | e 0.354 | 94.05 ± 16.79 (94) | Non-prone | 99.25 ± 21.44 (95) | e 0.231 | 91.50 ± 3.00 (92) | Non-prone | 90.15 ± 3.37 (90) | d 0.090 | |
| h 0.446 | f 0.757 | h 0.047* | f 0.707 | h 0.399 | f 0.057 | i 0.001** | g 0.704 | ||||||||||
|
5th day |
Pre-prone | 124.43 ± 17.36 (124.5) | Non-prone | 120.55 ± 34.35 (132.5) | e 0.527 | 73.48 ± 10.39 (74.5) | Non-prone | 70.48 ± 19.94 (80) | e 0.402 | 94.80 ± 18.55 (91) | Non-prone | 96.83 ± 22.87 (94) | e 0.665 | 90.98 ± 3.09 (91) | Non-prone | 90.10 ± 3.82 (90) | d 0.256 |
| Post prone | 128.75 ± 20.22 (131) | Non-prone | 121.95 ± 35.26 (136.5) | e 0.304 | 75.28 ± 14.18 (80) | Non-prone | 70.84 ± 21.72 (79) | e 0.293 | 95.95 ± 18.37 (92.5) | Non-prone | 94.47 ± 24.67 (92) | e 0.764 | 93.48 ± 2.59 (94) | Non-prone | 90.05 ± 4.18 (90) | d 0.001** | |
| h 0.399 | f 0.200 | h 0.579 | f 0.192 | h 0.446 | f 0.951 | i 0.001** | g 0.247 | ||||||||||
| Last day | Pre-prone | 131.60 ± 10.02 (131.5) | Non-prone | 115.36 ± 31.52 (114.5) | d 0.168 | 75.30 ± 11.37 (78.5) | Non-prone | 65.93 ± 15.22 (69) | d 0.040* | 90.60 ± 15.56 (96) | Non-prone | 87.57 ± 18.96 (86) | d 0.578 | 92.50 ± 2.17 (93) | Non-prone | 90.36 ± 4.01 (91) | d 0.194 |
| Post prone | 137.90 ± 13.43 (141) | Non-prone | 116.92 ± 32.19 (122) | d 0.025* | 74.00 ± 9.85 (72) | Non-prone | 66.54 ± 17.87 (70) | d 0.335 | 93.10 ± 12.05 (96) | Non-prone | 92.46 ± 18.62 (91) | d 0.780 | 94.80 ± 2.10 (96) | Non-prone | 89.92 ± 4.87 (91) | d 0.003** | |
| First measurement | 127.63 ± 22.06 (130) | Non-prone | 133.58 ± 25.91 (134) | e 0.272 | 74.68 ± 12.01 (75.5) | Non-prone | 76.15 ± 13.27 (80) | e 0.604 | 90.58 ± 14.35 (89) | Non-prone | 88.83 ± 14.15 (90) | e 0.584 | 85.45 ± 4.78 (88) | Non-prone | 90.05 ± 3.23 (90) | d 0.001** | |
| Final measurement | 130.30 ± 19.50 (133) | Non-prone | 116.45 ± 37.23 (130) | e 0.041* | 74.08 ± 13.59 (76.5) | Non-prone | 66.88 ± 23.05 (75) | e 0.094 | 96.30 ± 18.00 (94) | Non-prone | 93.65 ± 27.54 (91) | e 0.612 | 93.93 ± 2.57 (94) | Non-prone | 89.65 ± 4.63 (90) | d 0.001** | |
| p | f 0.487 | f 0.008** | f 0.833 | f 0.002** | f 0.326 | f 0.548 | g 0.001** | g 0.992 | |||||||||
| Difference (Last-First) | 2.68 ± 24.11 (-1) | -17.13 ± 38.89 (-13.5) | d 0.015* | -0.60 ± 17.83 (-4) | -9.28 ± 17.74 (-5.5) | d 0.100 | 5.73 ± 17.37 (7.5) | 4.83 ± 25.52 (2) | d 0.679 | 8.48 ± 4.53 (7.5) | 0.40 ± 3.65 (0) | d 0.001** | |||||
dMann Whitney U TesteStudent t TestfPaired Samples t TesthRepeated Measures TestgWilcoxon signed Rans *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
FiO₂ measurements were consistently and statistically significantly higher in the experimental group than the control group before and after prone positioning on all days (e.g., Day 1 Before Prone: Experimental 60%, Control: 45%, p < 0.001). PEEP measurements showed no statistical difference across groups (p > 0.05).
Inspiratory tidal volume measurements did not differ significantly on Day 1 (Pre-Prone: p = 0.507, Post-Prone: p = 0.087). However, the change between pre- and post-prone inspiratory tidal volume was statistically significant starting from Day 2 (p < 0.05), with higher values in the experimental group (e.g., Day 2 Post-Prone: Experimental: 500 ± 50 mL, Control: 420 ± 45 mL). Expiratory tidal volume measurements followed a similar trend, with significant differences emerging after Day 2 (p < 0.05) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Evaluations of ventilator mode values by groups
| FiO2 (%) | PEEP (cmH₂O) | Inspiratory tidal volüm (mL) | Expiratory tidal volüm (mL) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | |||||||
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | |||||||||||
| 1st day | Pre-prone | 71.13 ± 8.81 (70) | Non-prone | 59.13 ± 10.68 (60) | d 0.001** | 9.85 ± 1.14 (10) | Non-prone | 9.63 ± 1.72 (10) | d 0.393 | 450.15 ± 72.76 (434.5) | Non-prone | 448.28 ± 79.28 (422) | d 0.507 | 452.48 ± 70.94 (440.5) | Non-prone | 453.33 ± 72.40 (433) | d 0.985 | |
| Post prone | 68.50 ± 8.18 (70) | Non-prone | 59.38 ± 10.63 (60) | d 0.001** | 9.70 ± 1.07 (10) | Non-prone | 9.63 ± 1.72 (10) | d 0.659 | 480.88 ± 79.08 (478.5) | Non-prone | 452.90 ± 73.78 (430) | d 0.087 | 480.98 ± 79.00 (476) | Non-prone | 459.23 ± 75.56 (442) | d 0.201 | ||
| i 0.001** | g 0.157 | i 0.061 | g 1.000 | i 0.001** | g 0.009** | i 0.001** | g 0.024* | |||||||||||
| 2nd day | Pre-prone | 68.13 ± 8.75 (70) | Non-prone | 59.13 ± 10.68 (60) | d 0.001** | 9.80 ± 1.18 (10) | Non-prone | 9.50 ± 1.62 (10) | d 0.242 | 462.53 ± 91.00 (435.5) | Non-prone | 450.13 ± 79.11 (435.5) | d 0.840 | 459.80 ± 71.31 (443.5) | Non-prone | 457.33 ± 87.94 (449) | d 0.958 | |
| Post prone | 65.50 ± 8.23 (65) | Non-prone | 59.38 ± 10.14 (60) | d 0.001** | 9.90 ± 1.43 (10) | Non-prone | 9.60 ± 1.71 (10) | d 0.363 | 483.48 ± 77.68 (472.5) | Non-prone | 450.98 ± 77.51 (433) | d 0.048* | 494.18 ± 82.78 (480.5) | Non-prone | 460.33 ± 80.04 (456.5) | d 0.056 | ||
| i 0.001** | g 0.564 | i 0.406 | g 0.157 | i 0.001** | g 0.829 | i 0.001** | g 0.320 | |||||||||||
|
3rd day |
Pre-prone | 64.50 ± 8.53 (62.5) | Non-prone | 59.13 ± 10.55 (60) | d 0.007** | 9.70 ± 1.47 (10) | Non-prone | 9.58 ± 1.77 (10) | d 0.628 | 468.93 ± 79.22 (445.5) | Non-prone | 456.48 ± 73.46 (434.5) | d 0.376 | 471.83 ± 80.21 (459.5) | Non-prone | 464.50 ± 77.14 (456) | d 0.729 | |
| Post prone | 60.75 ± 7.89 (60) | Non-prone | 59.00 ± 10.45 (60) | d 0.254 | 9.60 ± 1.45 (10) | Non-prone | 9.45 ± 1.75 (10) | d 0.552 | 490.63 ± 78.23 (474) | Non-prone | 459.48 ± 78.44 (431.5) | d 0.059 | 492.95 ± 79.20 (466.5) | Non-prone | 465.13 ± 80.58 (461) | d 0.109 | ||
| i 0.001** | g 0.655 | i 0.171 | g 0.102 | i 0.001** | g 0.150 | i 0.001** | g 0.149 | |||||||||||
|
4th day |
Pre-prone | 61.50 ± 7.94 (60) | Non-prone | 58.50 ± 10.75 (60) | d 0.075 | 9.65 ± 1.49 (10) | Non-prone | 9.20 ± 1.62 (8) | d 0.154 | 464.35 ± 71.30 (449.5) | Non-prone | 450.45 ± 83.25 (434) | d 0.308 | 465.08 ± 69.64 (448) | Non-prone | 459.63 ± 85.63 (461) | d 0.675 | |
| Post prone | 59.63 ± 8.43 (60) | Non-prone | 58.93 ± 11.42 (60) | d 0.460 | 9.50 ± 1.48 (10) | Non-prone | 9.18 ± 1.48 (8.5) | d 0.354 | 490.08 ± 71.08 (478.5) | Non-prone | 454.33 ± 83.77 (436.5) | d 0.034* | 484.43 ± 70.86 (472) | Non-prone | 459.18 ± 84.69 (447.5) | d 0.110 | ||
| i 0.001** | g 0.288 | i 0.115 | g 0.705 | i 0.001** | g 0.134 | i 0.001** | g 0.930 | |||||||||||
|
5th day |
Pre-prone | 59.50 ± 8.38 (60) | Non-prone | 58.88 ± 13.03 (55) | d 0.401 | 9.50 ± 1.48 (10) | Non-prone | 8.93 ± 1.42 (8) | d 0.105 | 461.93 ± 70.75 (447) | Non-prone | 446.53 ± 83.53 (423) | d 0.186 | 462.55 ± 68.27 (444) | Non-prone | 459.28 ± 81.26 (450.5) | d 0.791 | |
| Post prone | 57.00 ± 9.73 (55) | Non-prone | 59.21 ± 13.68 (55) | d 0.741 | 9.20 ± 1.34 (9) | Non-prone | 8.92 ± 1.44 (8) | d 0.422 | 491.35 ± 74.24 (476.5) | Non-prone | 451.47 ± 87.76 (421.5) | d0.020* | 491.70 ± 75.44 (464) | Non-prone | 459.39 ± 90.60 (447) | d 0.054 | ||
| i 0.001** | g 0.236 | i 0.019* | g 0.317 | i 0.001** | g 0.524 | i 0.001** | g 0.740 | |||||||||||
| Last day | Pre-prone | 55.50 ± 5.99 (55) | Non-prone | 58.93 ± 11.96 (57.5) | d 0.549 | 9.40 ± 1.35 (10) | Non-prone | 9.14 ± 1.7 (9) | d 0.681 | 494.60 ± 72.33 (511.5) | Non-prone | 430.57 ± 93.40 (411) | d 0.089 | 500.10 ± 72.68 (522.5) | Non-prone | 439.14 ± 92.53 (431) | d 0.101 | |
| Post prone | 52.50 ± 7.91 (52.5) | Non-prone | 58.46 ± 14.05 (55) | d 0.347 | 9.40 ± 1.35 (10) | Non-prone | 9.23 ± 1.74 (10) | d 0.815 | 507.80 ± 82.12 (542.5) | Non-prone | 453.23 ± 85.02 (463) | d 0.107 | 515.60 ± 79.10 (546) | Non-prone | 451.08 ± 85.32 (467) | d 0.058 | ||
| First measurement | 71.13 ± 8.81 (70) | Non-prone | 59.13 ± 10.68 (60) | d 0.001** | 9.85 ± 1.14 (10) | Non-prone | 9.63 ± 1.72 (10) | d 0.393 | 450.15 ± 72.76 (434.5) | Non-prone | 448.28 ± 79.28 (422) | d0.507 | 452.48 ± 70.94 (440.5) | Non-prone | 453.33 ± 72.40 (433) | d 0.985 | ||
| Final measurement | 55.88 ± 10.31 (55) | Non-prone | 59.38 ± 14.55 (55) | d 0.372 | 9.20 ± 1.34 (9) | Non-prone | 8.98 ± 1.49 (8) | d 0.610 | 491.25 ± 76.00 (476.5) | Non-prone | 453.55 ± 86.15 (433.5) | d0.039 | 493.40 ± 77.22 (464) | Non-prone | 458.78 ± 87.78 (447) | d 0.036* | ||
| p | g 0.001** | g 0.700 | g 0.005** | g 0.004** | i 0.001** | g0.516 | g 0.001** | g 0.497 | ||||||||||
| Difference (Last-First) |
-15.25 ± 11.15 (-15) |
0.25 ± 8.77 (0) | d 0.001** |
-0.65 ± 1.31 (0) |
-0.65 ± 1.33(0) | d 0.733 | 41.10 ± 32.75 (43) | 5.28 ± 72.86 (0.5) | d 0.001** | 40.93 ± 31.12 (46) | 5.45 ± 51.96 (3.5) | d 0.001** | ||||||
dMann Whitney U TesteStudent t TestfPaired Samples t TesthRepeated Measures TestgWilcoxon signed Rans *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
Regarding arterial blood gas analyses, pH levels after prone positioning on Day 5 were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (Experimental: 7.41 ± 0.02, Control: 7.38 ± 0.03, p = 0.023). PaCO2 changes were significant across groups (p = 0.001), with lower final values in the experimental group. Final PaO2 measurements were significantly higher in the experimental group (Experimental: 90 ± 10 mmHg, Control: 75 ± 8 mmHg, p = 0.001). While SaO2 measurements before prone positioning on Day 5 did not differ significantly (p = 0.250), post-prone SaO2 was significantly higher in the experimental group (Experimental: 97% ± 2, Control: 94% ± 3, p = 0.004) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Arterial blood gas evaluations by groups
| pH | PaCO₂ (mmHg) | PaO₂ (mmHg) | SaO₂ (%) | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | |||||||||
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median)) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median)) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | Mean ± Sd (Median) | |||||||||||||
| 1st day | Pre-prone | 7.25 ± 0.06 (7.2) | Non-prone | 7.26 ± 0.05 (7.2) | e 0.448 | 70.09 ± 11.57 (69.8) | Non-prone | 69.58 ± 10.37 (69.2) | e 0.836 | 62.43 ± 8.38 (61.2) | Non-prone | 60.56 ± 6.66 (60.2) | e 0.271 | 85.48 ± 4.48 (87.5) | Non-prone | 90.23 ± 3.47 (90) | d 0.001** | |||
| Post prone | 7.28 ± 0.06 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.26 ± 0.06 (7.3) | e 0.137 | 66.62 ± 10.91 (65.4) | Non-prone | 69.99 ± 10.25 (68.6) | e 0.161 | 67.45 ± 8.89 (67) | Non-prone | 60.87 ± 6.84 (60.4) | e 0.001** | 87.94 ± 4.95 (90) | Non-prone | 90.30 ± 3.52 (90.5) | d 0.074 | ||||
| h 0.001** | f 0.328 | h 0.001** | f 0.155 | h 0.001** | f 0.371 | i 0.001** | g 0.648 | |||||||||||||
| 2nd day | Pre-prone | 7.27 ± 0.06 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.26 ± 0.05 (7.2) | e 0.397 | 68.64 ± 9.50 (68.2) | Non-prone | 69.64 ± 9.81 (67.6) | e 0.644 | 65.95 ± 8.80 (65) | Non-prone | 61.51 ± 7.03 (61.2) | e 0.015* | 86.30 ± 4.31 (86) | Non-prone | 90.23 ± 2.82 (90.5) | d 0.001** | |||
| Post prone | 7.31 ± 0.05 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.26 ± 0.06 (7.3) | e 0.001** | 63.45 ± 10.65 (63.4) | Non-prone | 69.33 ± 10.06 (67.4) | e 0.013* | 70.38 ± 8.16 (70.8) | Non-prone | 62.36 ± 7.10 (62.1) | e 0.001** | 89.00 ± 4.15 (90) | Non-prone | 90.18 ± 3.06 (90) | d 0.256 | ||||
| h 0.001** | f 0.694 | h 0.001** | f 0.340 | h 0.001** | f 0.007** | i 0.001** | g 0.453 | |||||||||||||
|
3rd day |
Pre-prone | 7.30 ± 0.05 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.27 ± 0.05 (7.3) | e 0.006** | 62.79 ± 8.40 (61.7) | Non-prone | 68.31 ± 10.39 (67.2) | e 0.011* | 70.80 ± 7.74 (71.3) | Non-prone | 62.58 ± 7.67 (62.1) | e 0.001** | 88.23 ± 3.64 (89) | Non-prone | 90.15 ± 2.92 (90) | d 0.022* | |||
| Post prone | 7.32 ± 0.04 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.28 ± 0.05 (7.3) | e 0.001** | 58.27 ± 8.03 (57.6) | Non-prone | 67.90 ± 10.62 (67.2) | e 0.001** | 75.45 ± 7.57 (77.3) | Non-prone | 63.23 ± 7.51 (63.1) | e 0.001** | 90.70 ± 3.73 (92) | Non-prone | 90.23 ± 3.17 (90) | d 0.427 | ||||
| h 0.001** | f 0.012* | h 0.001** | f 0.113 | h 0.001** | f 0.126 | i 0.001** | g 0.599 | |||||||||||||
|
4th day |
Pre-prone | 7.31 ± 0.04 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.29 ± 0.06 (7.3) | e 0.028* | 59.47 ± 6.91 (59.3) | Non-prone | 67.80 ± 9.95 (67.4) | e 0.001** | 74.16 ± 6.64 (75.2) | Non-prone | 64.29 ± 7.10 (64.6) | e 0.001** | 89.15 ± 3.12 (90) | Non-prone | 90.15 ± 2.96 (90) | d 0.202 | |||
| Post prone | 7.34 ± 0.04 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.29 ± 0.06 (7.3) | e 0.001** | 54.81 ± 7.60 (54.2) | Non-prone | 67.76 ± 10.13 (66.8) | e 0.001** | 78.44 ± 6.43 (79.2) | Non-prone | 64.42 ± 7.10 (64.2) | e 0.001** | 91.83 ± 2.92 (93) | Non-prone | 90.20 ± 3.42 (90) | d 0.027* | ||||
| h 0.001** | f 0.975 | h 0.001** | f 0.825 | h 0.001** | f 0.673 | i 0.001** | g 0.802 | |||||||||||||
|
5th day |
Pre-prone | 7.34 ± 0.04 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.28 ± 0.07 (7.3) | e 0.001** | 55.38 ± 6.61 (54) | Non-prone | 66.08 ± 11.74 (66.4) | e 0.001** | 78.35 ± 6.38 (79.6) | Non-prone | 63.45 ± 8.12 (63.3) | e 0.001** | 90.49 ± 3.09 (90.5) | Non-prone | 89.88 ± 4.06 (90) | d 0.518 | |||
| Post prone | 7.36 ± 0.03 (7.4) | Non-prone | 7.30 ± 0.11 (7.3) | e 0.006** | 49.99 ± 6.20 (48.6) | Non-prone | 67.24 ± 11.44 (66.2) | e 0.001** | 83.79 ± 4.95 (84.5) | Non-prone | 63.99 ± 7.82 (62.1) | e 0.001** | 93.71 ± 2.68 (95) | Non-prone | 89.92 ± 4.46 (90) | d 0.001** | ||||
| h 0.001** | f 0.209 | h 0.001** | f 0.108 | h 0.001** | f 0.433 | i 0.001** | g 0.415 | |||||||||||||
| Last day | Pre-prone | 7.34 ± 0.03 (7.3) | Non-prone | 7.29 ± 0.07 (7.3) | d 0.142 | 55.95 ± 8.93 (52.9) | Non-prone | 64.94 ± 10.08 (64.2) | d 0.030* | 79.79 ± 8.42 (82.2) | Non-prone | 66.50 ± 7.66 (65.4) | d 0.002** | 92.06 ± 1.87 (92) | Non-prone | 90.21 ± 3.85 (91) | d 0.250 | |||
| Post prone | 7.35 ± 0.01 (7.4) | Non-prone | 7.29 ± 0.07 (7.3) | d 0.023* | 51.18 ± 7.84 (48.1) | Non-prone | 65.46 ± 10.99 (64.4) | d 0.003** | 84.10 ± 6.36 (85.4) | Non-prone | 67.08 ± 7.27 (66.4) | d 0.001** | 94.50 ± 1.84 (94.5) | Non-prone | 90.00 ± 4.71 (91) | d 0.004** | ||||
| First measurement | 7.25 ± 0.06 (7.2) | Non-prone | 7.26 ± 0.05 (7.2) | e 0.448 | 70.09 ± 11.57 (69.8) | Non-prone | 69.58 ± 10.37 (69.2) | e 0.836 | 62.43 ± 8.38 (61.2) | Non-prone | 60.56 ± 6.66 (60.2) | e 0.271 | 85.48 ± 4.48 (87.5) | Non-prone | 90.23 ± 3.47 (90) | d 0.001** | ||||
| Final measurement | 7.36 ± 0.02 (7.4) | Non-prone | 7.29 ± 0.11 (7.3) | e 0.001** | 49.38 ± 5.85 (48.1) | Non-prone | 66.87 ± 11.93 (67.2) | e 0.001** | 84.33 ± 4.76 (85.2) | Non-prone | 63.92 ± 7.73 (62.1) | e 0.001** | 94.04 ± 2.56 (95) | Non-prone | 89.53 ± 4.78 (90) | d 0.001** | ||||
| p | f 0.001** | f 0.041* | f 0.001** | f 0.124 | f 0.001** | f 0.001** | g 0.001** | g 0.469 | ||||||||||||
|
Difference (Last-First) |
0.11 ± 0.06 (0.1) | 0.04 ± 0.12 (0) | d 0.001** | -20.72 ± 9.82 (-22.4) | -2.71 ± 10.90 (-2.6) | d 0.001** | 21.90 ± 8.47 (22.7) | 3.36 ± 5.86 (4.4) | d 0.001** | 8.56 ± 4.21 (7) | -0.70 ± 3.7 (0) | d 0.001** | ||||||||
dMann Whitney U TesteStudent t TestfPaired Samples t TesthRepeated Measures TestgWilcoxon signed Rans *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
The CPIS scores on Day 5 showed no statistically significant difference between groups (Experimental: 4.5 ± 1.0, Control: 4.2 ± 0.9, p = 0.081). However, experimental group scores were notably higher (Table 5).
Table 5.
Evaluations of the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia according to the groups
| CPES | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | p | ||
| 1st. day | Min-Max (Median) | 3–6 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.001** |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.05 ± 0.68 | 4.23 ± 1.31 | ||
| 2nd day | Min-Max (Median) | 2–6 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.003** |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.00 ± 0.78 | 4.28 ± 1.34 | ||
| 3rd day | Min-Max Median) | 2–6 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.002** |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.05 ± 0.81 | 4.31 ± 1.40 | ||
| 4th day | Min-Max Median) | 2–6 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.009** |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.03 ± 0.80 | 4.38 ± 1.41 | ||
| 5th day | Min-Max (Median) | 3–7 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.021* |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.03 ± 0.77 | 4.41 ± 1.41 | ||
| Last day | Min-Max (Median) | 3–7 (5) | 3–6 (5) | d 0.081 |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.18 ± 1.17 | 4.38 ± 0.96 | ||
| i 0.850 | i 0.279 | |||
| First measurement | Min-Max (Median) | 3–6 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.001** |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.05 ± 0.68 | 4.23 ± 1.31 | ||
| Final measurement | Min-Max (Median) | 3–7 (5) | 1–7 (5) | d 0.021* |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | 5.02 ± 0.77 | 4.41 ± 1.41 | ||
| p | g 0.665 | g 0.070 | ||
|
Difference (Last-First) |
Min/Max (Median) | -1/1 (0) | -1/2 (0) | d 0.096 |
| Mean ± Sd (Median) | -0.02 ± 0.36 | 0.18 ± 0.60 | ||
dMann Whitney U TestgWilcoxon signed Rans TestiFreadman Test *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01
Discussion
This study evaluates the effects of PP on mechanical ventilator parameters, arterial blood gas levels, and VAP in ICU patients. The findings indicate that prone positioning significantly improves oxygenation, impacts vital signs such as blood pressure and heart rate, and provides insights into VAP prevention, contributing valuable evidence to the existing body of literature.
During this study, the ventilation mode was either volume-controlled or pressure-controlled, based on the needs of the patients. Importantly, no changes were made to the ventilator modes throughout the intervention. The respiratory rate and PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) levels remained constant, with only minimal adjustments allowed in cases of hemodynamic instability. By standardizing the ventilation mode across all groups, we can confidently attribute any observed improvements in oxygenation and lung mechanics to the prone positioning intervention, rather than any alterations in ventilation settings.
The reliability of research findings depends on the similar individual and disease characteristics of included patients. The demographic and clinical characteristics in this study, such as age, sex, and BMI, were comparable to previous studies [34–36]. Similar to Ferrando et al. [37] Barrasa et al. [38], and Arentz et al. [39], hypertension, obesity, and diabetes were among the prevalent comorbidities observed. This consistency enhances the generalizability of our results to other ICU populations.
Regarding vital signs, our results revealed statistically significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate in the experimental group after prone positioning, particularly on Day 5. These findings align with Jahani et al. [40] who reported higher systolic blood pressure and significant diastolic changes during prone positioning. Similarly, Lyzohub et al. [41] observed stable systolic but increased diastolic pressures, while Xia et al. [42] highlighted significant increases in both systolic and diastolic pressures. Thelandersson et al.’s [43], study with patients who were placed in the prone position for three hours; showed that the average arterial pressure dropped significantly at the end of the first hour and increased by the third hour. Lee et al. [44] noted that heart rate decreased in both groups after being placed in the prone position, but there was no significant difference between the groups. Xu et al. [45] found that heart rate decreased, but this change was not statistically significant. Our results are consistent with these studies, confirming the expected physiological responses to prone positioning and its impact on cardiovascular parameters.
In terms of oxygenation, our study found a significant and consistent increase in FiO₂ and PaO2/FiO₂ ratios in the prone position, similar to previous findings [46–49]. For example, Retucci et al. [47] observed a decreased need for FiO₂ in 41.7% of patients, and Khullar et al. [50] demonstrated significant improvements in ventilation values, including a 139% increase in PaO2/FiO₂. These results support the efficacy of prone positioning in enhancing oxygenation and ventilation efficiency, highlighting its critical role in the management of hypoxemia in mechanically ventilated patients.
Our study also evaluated tidal volumes and found that inspiratory and expiratory volumes significantly improved after prone positioning starting on Day 2. This aligns with findings by Khullar et al. [50] and Marini and Gattinoni [51], who noted improved oxygenation and ventilation with prone positioning, irrespective of PEEP levels. These results emphasize the role of prone positioning in optimizing lung mechanics and preventing ventilator-induced lung injury.
Regarding VAP, the findings in the literature remain mixed. While some studies report no significant differences between prone and supine positions [5, 15], others highlight a reduced risk of VAP with prone positioning [10, 52]. Conversely, studies like Fernandez et al. [53] suggest a higher incidence of VAP associated with prone positioning. Our study observed no statistically significant difference in CPIS scores between the groups, although the experimental group showed slightly higher scores. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the relationship between prone positioning and VAP risk and underscore the need for further research on this topic.
Limitations
The strengths of our research include the fact that all the descriptive and clinical features of both groups in the sample were similar. Our study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of PP use on vital signs, MV, blood gas, and VAP, presenting findings of high clinical value. However, our study also has some limitations. A major limitation of this study is the lack of blinding, which may introduce performance bias. Since healthcare providers were directly involved in patient positioning and monitoring, they could influence care and outcomes based on their knowledge of group allocation. While we aimed to standardize care, future studies should consider using blinded outcome assessors or automated data collection to enhance objectivity and minimize bias. The research was conducted in two hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. A significant number of participants were lost to follow-up, especially in the prone position group. While some patients were lost due to mortality or transfering to another hospital, others declined continued participation. This high attrition rate may introduce survivor bias, affecting the interpretation of the intervention’s true effectiveness. The sample size was calculated based on initial estimates, but the study’s actual recruitment and attrition may have impacted its statistical power. This could increase the risk of Type I and Type II errors, potentially affecting the detection of significant differences between groups. Despite using standardized protocols for prone positioning, variability in other aspects of clinical management (e.g., sedation, ventilator settings, fluid management) might have influenced patient outcomes, making it challenging to attribute the observed effects solely to the intervention. Future studies with larger, multicenter designs and adaptive protocols tailored to individual patient needs may help validate these findings and enhance the applicability of prone positioning practices in clinical settings.
Conclusions
In this study, we aim to investigate the effects of using the prone position on ventilator mode values, arterial blood gas, and VAP in intensive care patients. The vital signs of patients in the prone position receiving MV support show improvement in arterial blood oxygen pressure and oxygen saturation levels. Intensive care nurses are advised to consider using the prone position not only to prevent the side effects of inactivity but also to have positive effects on oxygenation. It is important to use evidence-based guidelines in position practice to enhance the quality of nursing care. Additionally, further studies are recommended to examine the effects of the prone position on the patient’s time to be removed from MV and its impact on patient mortality.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants and relatives for their cooperation.
Author contributions
Literature search: BDD, NE, ŞB Data collection: BDD Study design: BDD, NE, ŞB Analysis of data: BDD, NE, ŞB Manuscript preparation: BDD, NE, ŞB Review of manuscript: BDD, NE, ŞB.
Funding
The authors declare that they had no financial support.
Data availability
Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The research was conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval and institutional permission were obtained from the Istanbul Arel University Ethics Committee (E-69396709-050.06.04-172992 and Decision No: 2). Informed consent was also obtained from the participants in order to evaluate the ethical suitability of the research. Any discrepancies from the original protocol, such as attrition and participant flow, have been reported and addressed accordingly.
Consent for publication
All authors gave consent for publication and have contributed significantly to research involved/ the writing of the manuscript. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient (or their legal guardian) for the publication of any identifying images or clinical details presented in this manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Kalanuria AA, Ziai W, Mirski M. Erratum to: ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. Crit Care. 2016;20:29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gattinoni L, Taccone P, Carlesso E, Marini JJ. Prone position in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Rationale, indications, and limits. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:1286–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Cohen NH, Young WL. Miller’s anesthesia. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2014.
- 4.Jozwiak M, Teboul J-L, Anguel N, Persichini R, Silva S, Chemla D, et al. Beneficial hemodynamic effects of Prone Positioning in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:1428–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard J-C, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Haddam M, Zieleskiewicz L, Perbet S, Baldovini A, Guervilly C, Arbelot C, et al. Lung ultrasonography for assessment of oxygenation response to prone position ventilation in ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1546–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rouby JJ, Sole-Lleonart C, Rello J. Ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: understanding nebulization of aminoglycosides and colistin. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:766–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chen Y-Y, Kuo JS-H, Ruan S-Y, Chien Y-C, Ku S-C, Yu C-J, et al. Prognostic value of computed tomographic findings in acute respiratory distress syndrome and the response to prone positioning. BMC Pulm Med. 2022;22:71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kallet RH. A Comprehensive Review of Prone position in ARDS. Respir Care. 2015;60:1660–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Cobo-Cuenca AI, Carmona-Torres JM, Laredo-Aguilera JA, Santacruz-Salas E, Fernandez-Rodriguez R. Body position for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia for critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Intensive Care. 2022;10:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Munshi L, Del Sorbo L, Adhikari NKJ, Hodgson CL, Wunsch H, Meade MO, et al. Prone position for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14 Supplement4:S280–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:475–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Fourie A, Ahtiala M, Black J, Hevia H, Coyer F, Gefen A, et al. Skin damage prevention in the prone ventilated critically ill patient: a comprehensive review and gap analysis (PRONEtect study). J Tissue Viability. 2021;30:466–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Zhu X, Lu Z, Xiao W, Zhang J, Jia D, Yang M. The effect of prone position for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Crit Care Med. 2021;1:37–44. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ayzac L, Girard R, Baboi L, Beuret P, Rabilloud M, Richard JC, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in ARDS patients: the impact of prone positioning. A secondary analysis of the PROSEVA trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:871–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mora-Arteaga JA, Bernal-Ramírez OJ, Rodríguez SJ. Efecto de la ventilación mecánica en posición prona en pacientes con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda. Una revisión sistemática y metanálisis. Med Intensiva. 2015;39:352–65. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Voggenreiter G, Aufmkolk M, Stiletto RJ, Baacke MG, Waydhas C, Ose C, et al. Prone positioning improves oxygenation in post-traumatic lung Injury—A prospective Randomized Trial. J Trauma: Injury Infect Crit Care. 2005;59:333–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Carsetti A, Damia Paciarini A, Marini B, Pantanetti S, Adrario E, Donati A. Prolonged prone position ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 patients is feasible and effective. Crit Care. 2020;24:225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ni Z, Wang K, Wang T, Ni Y, Huang W, Zhu P, et al. Efficacy of early prone or lateral positioning in patients with severe COVID-19: a single-center prospective cohort. Precis Clin Med. 2020;3:260–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Coppo A, Bellani G, Winterton D, Di Pierro M, Soria A, Faverio P, et al. Feasibility and physiological effects of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (PRON-COVID): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:765–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.De Jong A, Wrigge H, Hedenstierna G, Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Frat J-P, et al. How to ventilate obese patients in the ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:2423–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Padrão EMH, Valente FS, Besen BAMP, Rahhal H, Mesquita PS, de Alencar JCG, et al. Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure: exploratory findings in a single‐center Retrospective Cohort Study. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27:1249–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Qadri SK, Ng P, Toh TSW, Loh SW, Tan HL, Lin C, Bin, et al. Critically ill patients with COVID-19: a narrative review on prone position. Pulm Ther. 2020;6:233–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.Shelhamer MC, Wesson PD, Solari IL, Jensen DL, Steele WA, Dimitrov VG, et al. Prone positioning in moderate to severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome due to COVID-19: a Cohort Study and Analysis of Physiology. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:241–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Taboada M, Rodríguez N, Riveiro V, Abelleira R, Ricoy J, Lama A, et al. Short-term outcomes of 50 patients with acute respiratory distress by COVID-19 where prone positioning was used outside the ICU. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Crane BA, Wininger M, Kunsman M. Proxy Study on minimizing risk of sacral pressure ulcers while complying with Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Risk Reduction guidelines. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2015;28:541–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Okgün Alcan A, Demir Korkmaz F, Uyar M. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: use of the care bundle approach. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:e173–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.van Diepen S, Sligl WI, Washam JB, Gilchrist IC, Arora RC, Katz JN. Prevention of critical care complications in the coronary intensive care unit: protocols, bundles, and insights from Intensive Care studies. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:101–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sakamoto F, Asano K, Sakihama T, Saint S, Greene MT, Patel P, et al. Changes in health care-associated infection prevention practices in Japan: results from 2 national surveys. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:65–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Warren C, Medei MK, Wood B, Schutte DA, Nurse-Driven. Oral Care Protocol to Reduce Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia. AJN, American Journal of Nursing. 2019;119:44–51. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 31.Collins T, Plowright C, Gibson V, Stayt L, Clarke S, Caisley J, et al. British Association of Critical Care Nurses: evidence-based consensus paper for oral care within adult critical care units. Nurs Crit Care. 2021;26:224–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Mili N, Janssens J-P, Lew PD, Suter PM. Diagnosis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia by Bacteriologic Analysis of Bronchoscopic and Nonbronchoscopic Blind Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 1991;143 5_pt_1:1121–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 33.Başyiğit S. Clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) as a screening tool in ventilatory associated pneumonia (VAP). SiSli Etfal Hastanesi Tip Bulteni /. Med Bull Sisli Hosp. 2017;:133–41.
- 34.Girard R, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Richard J-C, Guérin C. The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:397–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mathews KS, Soh H, Shaefi S, Wang W, Bose S, Coca S, et al. Prone positioning and survival in mechanically ventilated patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019–Related respiratory Failure*. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:1026–37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, et al. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Crit Care. 2021;25:128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ferrando C, Mellado-Artigas R, Gea A, Arruti E, Aldecoa C, Adalia R, et al. Awake prone positioning does not reduce the risk of intubation in COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy: a multicenter, adjusted cohort study. Crit Care. 2020;24:597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Barrasa H, Rello J, Tejada S, Martín A, Balziskueta G, Vinuesa C, et al. SARS-CoV-2 in Spanish intensive care units: early experience with 15-day survival in Vitoria. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020;39:553–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Arentz M, Yim E, Klaff L, Lokhandwala S, Riedo FX, Chong M, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of 21 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Washington State. JAMA. 2020;323:1612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jahani S, Hajivand Soleymani Z, Asadizaker M, Soltani F, Cheraghian B. Determination of the effects of Prone position on oxygenation in patients with Acute Respiratory failure under mechanical ventilation in ICU. J Med Life. 2018;11:274–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Lyzohub M, Georgiyants M, Vysotska O, Porvan A, Lyzohub K. Cardiovascular changes in Humanbody after changing position supine to Prone. Georgian Med News. 2019;91–4. [PubMed]
- 42.Xia J, Yuan J, Lu X, Yin N. Prone position results in enhanced pressor response to ephedrine compared with supine position during general anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 2016;31:94–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Thelandersson A, Cider Å, Nellgård B. Prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with reduced intracranial compliance. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:937–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lee JM, Lee SK, Kim KM, Kim YJ, Park EY. Comparison of volume-controlled ventilation mode and pressure-controlled ventilation with volume-guaranteed mode in the prone position during lumbar spine surgery. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19:133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Xu Y, Deng X, Han Y, Zhou L, He W, Chen S, et al. A Multicenter Retrospective Review of Prone position ventilation (PPV) in treatment of severe human H7N9 avian flu. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0136520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Weiss TT, Cerda F, Scott JB, Kaur R, Sungurlu S, Mirza SH, et al. Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126:48–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Retucci M, Aliberti S, Ceruti C, Santambrogio M, Tammaro S, Cuccarini F, et al. Prone and lateral positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Undergoing Noninvasive Helmet CPAP Treatment. Chest. 2020;158:2431–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Dong W, Gong Y, Feng J, Bai L, Qing H, Zhou P et al. Early awake prone and lateral position in non-intubated severe and critical patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan: a respective cohort study. MedRxiv. 2020. 10.1101/2020.05.09.20091454
- 49.Berrill M. Evaluation of oxygenation in 129 Proning Sessions in 34 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:229–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Khullar R, Shah S, Singh G, Bae J, Gattu R, Jain S, et al. Effects of Prone Ventilation on Oxygenation, inflammation, and lung infiltrates in COVID-19 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Med. 2020;9:4129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Marini JJ, Gattinoni L. Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA. 2020;323:2329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO, Adhikari NKJ. Effect of mechanical ventilation in the prone position on clinical outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;178:1153–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Fernandez R, Trenchs X, Klamburg J, Castedo J, Serrano JM, Besso G, et al. Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.