1. Background
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can result in Coronavirus Disease–19 (COVID-19) [[1], [2]]. While the majority of patients are asymptomatic or have mild disease [3], approximately 14% develop more severe disease including hypoxemic respiratory failure and/or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) [3]. Prone positioning is a life-saving intervention for mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe ARDS [4]. Based on this, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend these patients be considered for a trial of prone positioning [5].
Recently the use of prone positioning in awake non-intubated COVID-19 patients has been recommended by several notable organizations with the goal of preventing intubation and potentially improving patient-oriented outcomes [[6], [7]]. In contrast to prone positioning for intubated mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS, there have been no randomized control trials examining the role of awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. To further explore this question we used rapid review methodology Tricco et al. [8] to quickly identify and synthesize studies examining the effect of awake prone positioning on patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure (including those with ARDS and/or COVID-19).
2. Methods
We have elected to use “rapid review” methodology rather than “systematic review” methodology primarily due to the speed and efficiency through which we are able to conduct this review, as previously described [8]. In the absence of an EQUATOR guidance document, we used PRISMA guidelines where applicable [9].
Studies were included if they met the following criteria 1) population – non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, 2) intervention – prone positioning, 3) comparator – usual management, 4) outcomes – intubation, survival, change in respiratory parameters, adverse events, 5) setting – hospitalized patients 6) study design – observational or randomized control trial. Studies were not limited to ARDS or COVID-19 patients.
The search strategy was developed by a critical care physician (KP), a critical care epidemiologist (KF) and a medical librarian (NL) (See search details in Online Supplement). Briefly, the search strategy involved combinations of keywords and subject headings relating to the concepts of, 1) SARS-Cov-2 or COVID-19 or coronavirus, 2) awake prone positioning, and 3) hypoxemic respiratory failure, including but not limited to ARDS and other potentially relevant conditions. The search was conducted on May 19, 2020 and was updated on August 7, 2020 with no restrictions on publication language or date. Databases and grey literature sources searched included: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Trip PRO, Cochrane Library, LitCOVID, WHO COVID-19 Research Database, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), medRxiv, BMJ Best Practice, Cambridge Coronavirus Free Access Collection, and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently and in duplicate (KP and JW) for selection for full text review. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer (KS). Full text review and data abstraction was conducted independently and in duplicate (KP, KS, JW). Data abstracted included study characteristics, participant demographics, and outcomes.
3. Results
The search yielded 181 unique articles. From this, 162 articles were selected for full text review and 35 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the final rapid review synthesis. A total of 35 studies (including 12 prospective cohorts, 18 retrospective cohorts, and 5 case reports) with 414 patients were synthesized (see Table 1 for COVID-19 studies and Table 2 for non-COVID-19 studies) [[10], [11], [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], [43], [44]]. Twenty-nine of these studies (n = 364 patients; 11 prospective cohorts, 13 retrospective cohorts, 5 case reports) report on the use of awake prone positioning in COVID-19 patients [[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[19], [20], [21],[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29],[31], [32], [33],[35], [36], [37], [38], [39],[41], [42], [43], [44]]. Only one study included data from a control group [44]. Seventeen studies (128 patients) were conducted exclusively within the ICU [12,[16], [17], [18], [19],22,23,25,[29], [30], [31],34,35,37,[40], [41], [42]], two in the emergency department (60 patients) [10,13], eight exclusively on a non-ICU hospital ward (104 patients) [14,20,21,27,28,32,33,38], and two studies included patients in multiple settings (73 patients) [15,36]. The setting was not reported in 6 studies (49 patients) [11,24,26,39,43,44]. The frequency and duration of prone positioning was protocolized in only 15 studies (223 patients) [10,[14], [15], [16],18,19,25,26,28,30,31,38,39,43,44]. The duration of prone positioning sessions varied from <1 h to >18 h (Tables 1 and 2) and was not reported in three studies [13,26,27]. All studies demonstrated improvements in oxygenation while patients were in the prone position except one [17]. When reported, improvements in oxygenation were generally not sustained after returning to the supine position, [15,20,31,[34], [35], [36]] except in two studies in which patients were receiving NIV [33,40]. One hundred twenty-one patients (29%) of the 414 patients (35 studies) required invasive mechanical ventilation. Adverse events were variably reported and included 42 deaths among the 414 patients (10.1% of all patients), discomfort, nosebleeds, sternal pain, back pain, and intolerance of awake prone positioning. Follow-up duration was variably reported (Table 1, Table 2) and was not reported in eight studies [17,18,[22], [23], [24], [25],30,31].
Table 1.
Author | Study Type | N | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria | Setting | Oxygen Delivery Mode | Prone Positioning Protocol | Study Outcome | Duration of Follow-up | Duration of Prone Positioning | Supine Oxygenation and Resp Rate (if available) mean (SD), median [IQR] |
Prone Position Oxygenation and Resp Rate (if available) mean (SD), median [IQR] | Intubation Rate, No. (%) | Adverse Event Reporting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coppo (2020) | PC | 56 | Age 18–75, confirmed COVID-19, hypoxemia consent | Pregnant, uncollaborative, altered mental status, NYHA < II, increased BNP, COPD on home NIV or O2, impending intubation | Non-ICU Medical units, ED, ICU | Helmet CPAP, Reservoir mask, Venturi mask | Assisted proning, encouraged to maintain x 3 h, Repeat up to 8 h/d | PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge | Median 3 h [3, 4] Up to 7 sessions. |
PaO2:FiO2 180.5 (76.6) RR 24.5 (5.5) |
PaO2:FiO2 285.5 (112.9) RR 24.5 (6.9) |
18/56 (32) | 9% discomfort 4% worsening oxygenation 2% coughing 5 deaths (9%) |
Golestani-Eraghi (2020) | PC | 10 | COVID-19, not mech ventilated, PaO2:FiO2 < 150 | Not reported | ICU | Helmet NIV | 2 h sessions | Not reported | Not reported | Mean 9 h | PaO2 46.3 (5.2) | PaO2 62.5 (4.6) | 2/10 (20%) | None reported 2 deaths (20%) |
Moghadam (2020) | PC | 10 | COVID-19, not mech ventilated | Not reported | Non-ICU Medical unit | Not reported | Not reported | SpO2, RR, auxiliary muscle use | Hospital discharge | Not reported | SpO2 86% (0.7) | SpO2 96% (2.2) | 0/10 (0) | Not reported |
Elharrar (2020) | PC | 24 | Hypoxemia, CT chest with COVID-19 and posterior lesions | Requiring intubation, altered consciousness | Non-ICU Medical unit | NP, facemask, HFNC | Single episode, no goal duration | Proportion of patients with PaO2 increase ≥20%from supine to PP | 10 days | 17% <1 h 21% 1–3 h 63% >3 h |
PaO2 72.8 (14.2) | PaO2 91 (27.3) 25% had ≥20% increase PaO2 |
5/24 (20.8) | 42% backpain 17% tolerated <1 h 17% required intubation within 72 h |
Ng (2020) | PC | 10 | Hypoxemia | Drowsy, uncooper-ative, ophthalmic or cervical pathology, pregnancy, hemodyn-amic instability, FiO2 > 0.5 | Non-ICU Medical unit | NP, HFNC, or Venturi mask | 1 h sessions, 5 sessions/d spaced 3 h apart. Continued until on RA x 24 h |
Not reported | Median 8 days (range 2–19) | Median total duration 21 h (range 2–58) | SpO2 91.5 (range 88–95) | Not reported | 1/10 (10) | Discomfort, nausea, vomiting reported 1 death (10%) |
Retucci (2020) | PC | 26 | COVID-19, spontane-ous breathing, GCS = 15, PaO2:FiO2 < 250 after 48 h Helmet CPAP | Requiring intubation, GCS < 15, SBP < 90, SpO2 < 90% on FiO2 > 0.8 | ICU | Helmet CPAP | Prone/lateral positioning based on CXR or CT scan, 1 h sessions. 39 sessions: 12 prone, 27 lateral |
Successful trial, defined as all 4 of: 1. decrease A-aO2 gradient ≥20%, 2. equal or reduced RR, 3. equal or reduced dyspnea 4. SBP ≥ 90 mmHg |
Not reported | 1 h | PaO2:FiO2 182.9 (43) A-aO2 207.1 [160.7–251.3] RR 23.7 (4.7) |
PaO2:FiO2 220 (64.5) A-aO2 184.3 [141.4–246.8] RR 23.1 (4.5) |
7/26 (27) | 39% of trials did not meet primary outcome. 25% of prone position trials failed 40% of lateral position trials failed 8% did not tolerate (both in lateral position) 5% discomfort 3% SBP < 90 mmHg 8% increased RR 2 deaths (8%) |
Sartini (2020) | PC | 15 | Hypoxemia (SpO2 < 94%), FiO2 > 0.6 and CPAP 10 cm H2O | – | Non-ICU Medical Unit | NIV | Not reported | PaO2:FiO2, RR, patient comfort with NIV | 14 days | Median 3 h (IQR 1–6) | PaO2:FiO2 58–117** Supine RR: 21–31** |
PaO2:FiO2 114–122** PP: 18–27** |
1/15 (6.6) | 1 death (7%) |
Thompson (2020) | PC | 29 | Confirmed COVID-19, Severe hypoxemia (RR > 30 and SpO2 < 93% on 6 L O2 by NP and 15 L by NRB | Altered mental status, inability to turn without help, immediate intubation needed, mild hypoxemia. | Step-down unit (interme-diate) | NP or NRB | Repeated episodes, up to 24 h per day, use a pillow under hips/pelvis. | Change in SpO2 at 1 h | Up to 49 days or to hospital discharge | Median 4 h (range 1–24) in not-intubated group, Median 6 h (range 1–24) in intubated group. |
SpO2 65–95%** | SpO2 90–100%** Median SpO2 improvement 7% [4.6–9.4] |
16/29 (55) | 13% refused 3 deaths (10%) |
Tu (2020) | PC | 9 | COVID-19 confirmed, HFNC >2 days, PaO2:FiO2 < 150 | – | Not reported | HFNC | Repeated episodes, as long as tolerated | SpO2 PaO2 |
Hospital discharge, mean LOS 28 (10) d | Median 2 h [1–4] per session, median 5 [3–8] sessions | SpO2 90% (2) PaO2 69 (10) |
SpO2 96% (3) PaO2 108 (14) |
2/9 (22) | None reported 1 intubated patient required ECMO 0 deaths (0%) |
Caputo (2020) | PC | 50 | Hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%) | NIV use, DNR order | ED | NP or facemask | Not reported | SpO2 5 min after PP, intubation rate within 24 h | 3 days | Not reported | SpO2 84% [75–90] | SpO2 94% [90–95] | 13/50 (26.0) | 22% required intubation within 60 min |
Zhang (2020) | PC | 23 | COVID-19, Hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), Age 18–80, consent | Need for intubation, inability to self position, basal lung disease, unstable spine, high ICP, severe burns, abdo surgery, abdo HTN, cranial injury, tracheotomy, immuno-suppresion, pregnant, imminent death. | Not reported | NP, HFNC, NIV | Evaluated muscle strength first, self position prone, 1-2 h sessions 3–4 times/day for 5 days. Vitals measured at 10 min and 30 min in PP | SpO2, RR, ROX | 90 days | Median 9 h [8–22] | SpO2 91.1 (1.5), RR 28.2 (3.1) ROX 3.35 (0.46) |
SpO2 95.5 (1.7) RR 24.9 (1.8) ROX 3.96 (0.45) |
8/23 (35) | 10 deaths (43%) |
Bastoni (2020) | RC | 10 | Receiving helmet NIV, awake & able to prone | Need for rapid intubation & ICU, End-stage comorbid disease | ED | Helmet CPAP 10–20 cmH2O | Nurse assisted, Morphine infusion for sedation. | PaO2:FiO2, Lung US signs | Hospital discharge | 1 h | PaO2:FiO2 68 (5) | PaO2:FiO2 97 (8) No change in lung US findings |
6/10 (60) | 40% did not tolerate or refused. 4 deaths (40%) |
Burton-Papp (2020) | RC | 20 | COVID-19, Hypoxemia, received CPAP or NIV | – | ICU | CPAP or NIV | Not described | ΔP/F | Hospital discharge | Median 3 [2] Median 5 cycles per patient [6.25] |
– | ΔPaO2/FiO2 + 28.7 [95%CI 18.7–38.6] ΔRR −0.98 [95%CI -2-0.04] |
7/20 (35) | None reported 2 intubated patients required ECMO 0 deaths |
Cohen (2020) | RC | 2 | 52 Female 40 Male |
– | Non-ICU Medical unit | HFNC, NP | Self-prone as long as possible | – | Discharge from unit | 2–4 h per day | Patient 1. SpO2 90% on HFNC FiO2 1.0, RR 45 Patient 2. SpO2 92% on 4 L |
Patient 1. SpO2 100% on HFNC FiO2 1.0, RR 25 Patinet 2. SpO2 96% on 2 L |
0/2 (0) | None reported |
Damarla (2020) | RC | 10 | Confirmed COVID-19, rapidly increasing O2 requiring ICU | Requiring intubation | ICU | NP or HFNC | Alternate prone/supine every 2 h, supervised first episode | SpO2, RR at 1 h | 28 d | 2 h | SpO2 94% [91–95] RR 31 [28–39] |
SpO2 98 [97–99] RR 22 [18–25] |
2/10 (20) | None 0 deaths |
Despres (2020) | RC | 6 | COVID-19, PaO2:FiO2 ≤ 300 | Requiring intubation | ICU | NP, HFNC | As long as tolerated | PaO2:FiO2 | Not reported | Median 2 h [1–7] | PaO2:FiO2 183 [144–212] | PaO2:FiO2 168 [156–225] | 3/6 (50%) | Not reported |
Dong (2020) | RC | 25 | COVID-19, Severe disease (RR ≥ 30, SpO2 ≤ 93% or PaO2:FiO2 〈300), or critical disease (Requiring ventilation, shock, organ failure) | Excluded patients who received PP but rapidly improved or who did not tolerate first session. | ICU | NP, Mask, HFNC, NIV | Daily session >4 h, nurse instructions, lateral positioning if PP not tolerated | Survival, intubation, PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge | Mean 4.9 h (SD 3.1) | PaO2:FiO2 194 [164–252] RR 27 [26–30] |
PaO2:FiO2 348 [288–390] RR 22 [20−22] |
0/25 | 16% Sternal pain 4% Scrotal pain 4% Lumbago 4% Pruritis 0 deaths |
Froelich (2020) | RC | 3 | Confirmed COVID-19 | – | Not reported | NP. Face Mask, HFNC | Varied positions, supine, lateral, prone, ergonomic prone. | SpO2 | Not reported | <30 min | Patient 1. SpO2 94% on 4 L Patient 2. SpO2 95% on 6 L Patient 3. SpO2 91% on 15 L |
Patient 1. SpO2 97% on 4 L Patient 2. SpO2 97% on 6 L Patient 3. SpO2 95% on 15 L (lateral position only) |
0/3 (0) | 33% Hip and back pain 33% Inability to maintain prone position due to jaw dislocation |
Huang (2020) | RC | 3 | SpO2 < 92% on ≥6 L or PaO2:FiO2 < 200, bilateral opacities, RR < 30 | Accessory muscle use, Contraindic-ations (cervical instability, pregnancy) | Not reported | HFNC, Venturi mask | Four 2 h sessions daily | PaO2:FiO2 | Up to 6 days | Not reported | Patient 1. PaO2:FiO2 84.8 Patient 2. PaO2:FiO2 160 Patient 3. PaO2:FiO2 60.6 |
Patient 1. PaO2:FiO2 114 Patient 2. PaO2:FiO2 169 Patient 3. PaO2:FiO2 133 |
1/3 (33) | Not reported |
Paul (2020) | RC | 2 | 42 Male 35 Male |
– | ICU | HFNC, NIV | Not reported | – | Hospital discharge | 2–3 h sessions, over 3 days | Patient 1. SpO2 92% on FiO2 0.7 Patient 2. FiO2 0.8 |
Patient 1. SpO2 98% on FiO2 0.5 Patient 2. FiO2 0.4 |
0/2 (0) | Anxiety and discomfort in both patients |
Ripoll-Gallardo (2020) | RC | 13 | PaO2:FiO2 < 150 | Requiring intubation, hemodyn-amic instability, multiorgan failure | Non-ICU Medical unit | Helmet CPAP | Encouraged as long as possible | PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge | Mean 2.4 h (SD 0.87) | PaO2:FiO2 113 [108–121] | PaO2:FiO2 138 [126–178] | 9/13 (69) | No complications 7 deaths (54%) |
Solverson (2020) | RC | 17 | Suspected or confirmed COVID-19, ICU consult, Hypoxemia (5 L to maintain SpO2 ≥ 90%), at least 1 prone session | – | ICU, non-ICU medical ward | NP, HFNC | Encouraged as long as possible | SpO2 Tolerability |
Hospital discharge | 35% < 1 h Median 75 min (range 30–480), Median 2 sessions (range 1–6) per day |
SpO2 91% (range 84–95) RR 28 (range 18–38) SpO2:FiO2 152 (range 97–233) |
SpO2 98% (range 92–100) RR 22 (range 15–33) SpO2:FiO2 165 (range 106–248) |
7/17 (41) | 47% pain/discomfort 6% delirium 2 deaths (12%) |
Sztajnbok (2020) | RC | 2 | 43 Male 37 Male |
– | ICU | NRB | Encouraged as long as possible | – | ICU discharge | 8–10 h, single sessions | Patient 1. SpO2 100% on 10 L, RR 30 Patient 2. SpO2 94% on 10 L, RR 28 |
Patient 1. Decreased to 5 L Patient 2. SpO2 96% on 3 L, RR 22 |
0/2 (0) | Not reported |
Xu (2020) | RC | 10 | COVID-19 confirmed, | Not reported | Target 16 h/d, target SpO2 > 90% | PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge, mean LOS 17.7 d | 4–6 h sessions | PaO2:FiO2 89–228 | PaO2:FiO2 200–325** on day 3 of PP | 0/10 (0) | 0 deaths | ||
Cascella (2020) | CR | 1 | 54 Male Received tocilizumab |
– | Not reported | NIV | 3 sessions per day | PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge | Mean 90 min per session | PaO2:FiO2 150 | PaO2:FiO2 300 | 0/1 (0) | Not reported |
Vibert (2020) | CR | 1 | 23 Female pregnant Hypoxemia |
– | ICU | HFNC and NIV | Not reported | – | Hospital discharge | 2 h periods | SpO2 89%, FiO2 0.6, 60 L/min | SpO2 96%, FiO2 0.6, 60 L/min | 0/1 (0) | No adverse patient or fetal events |
Elkattawy (2020) | CR | 1 | 36 Male Hypoxemia | – | Non-ICU Medical unit | NP | Not reported | – | 1 day | >12 h per day | SpO2 94%, 4 L/min NP | SpO2 95%, room air | 0/1 (0) | Not reported |
Slessarev (2020) | CR | 1 | 68 Male Hypoxemia | – | ICU | HFNC | Not reported | – | 4 days | 16–18 h per day | PaO2:FiO2 100** | PaO2:FiO2 250** | 0/1 (0) | 1 Nosebleed |
Whittemore (2020) | CR | 1 | 60 Male Hypoxemia | – | ICU | NRB | Not reported | SpO2 | Hospital discharge | >18 h per day | SpO2 82% on 12 L NRB | SpO2 94% on 12 L NRB | 0/1 | Not reported |
* High flow nasal cannula success/failure, ** Range, estimated from a figure. Abbreviations: ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; BNP, B-type natriuretic peptide; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; CR, case report; CT, computed tomography; DNR, do not resuscitate; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ED, emergency department; FiO2, fraction of inhaled oxygen; GCS, Glasgow Coma Scale; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; HFPV, high-frequency percussive ventilation; HTN, hypertension; ICP, intracranial pressure; ICU, intensive care unit; IQR, interquartile range; LOS, length of stay; NIV, non-invasive ventilation; NP, nasal prongs; NRB, non-rebreather face mask; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PaO2, partial pressure of arterial oxygen; PC, prospective cohort; PP, prone position; RC, retrospective cohort; RA, room air; ROX, ROX index = SpO2/FiO2 x 1/respiratory rate; RR, respiratory rate; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SD, standard deviation; SpO2, oxygen saturation; US, ultrasound.
Table 2.
Author | Study Type | N | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria | Setting | Oxygen Delivery Mode | Prone Positioning Protocol | Study Outcome | Duration of Follow-up | Duration of Prone Positioning | Supine Oxygenation and Resp Rate (if available) mean (SD), median [IQR] |
Prone Position Oxygenation and Resp Rate (if available) mean (SD), median [IQR] |
Intubation Rate, No. (%) | Adverse Event Reporting |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ding (2020) | PC | 20 | ARDS (Berlin) on NIV with CPAP 5 cm H2O and PaO2:FiO2 < 200 | Requiring intubation | ICU | HFNC or NIV | >30 min, 2 times daily for 3 days | Intubation rate, change in PaO2:FiO2 | Not reported | Mean 2 h | PaO2:FiO2 95 (22) / 102 (15)* | PaO2:FiO2 130 (35) / 113 (25)* | 9/20 (45.0) | 2 non-tolerant 1 death (5%) |
Perez-Nieto (2020) | RC | 6 | ARDS (Berlin criteria) non-infections ARDS, and PaO2:FiO2 < 100 | – | ICU | HFNC or NIV | 2–3 h, 2 times daily for 2 days | – | Not reported | 2–3 h every 12 h | PaO2:FiO2 80 [67–91] |
PaO2:FiO2 116 [101−131] |
2/6 (33.3) | 1 death (17%) |
Scaravilli (2015) | RC | 15 | PaO2:FiO2 < 300, and undergone one PP without intubation | – | ICU | NP, HFNC or NIV | Not reported | Change in PaO2:FiO2 | Hospital discharge | Median 3 (IQR 2–4) | PaO2:FiO2 127(49) RR: 26 (10) |
PaO2:FiO2 186 (72) RR: 25 (11) |
2/15 (13.3) | No displaced catheters, pressure sores, neuropathy, vomiting, change in hemodynamics or vasopressors 2 patients non-tolerant, 3 patients died without intubation: 2 patients put on ECMO before intubation, and 1 patient changed goals of care |
Feltracco (2012) | RC | 3 | Post lung transplant, and hypoxemia | – | ICU | HFPV | Not reported | – | Not reported | 1–3 h 5–6 times per day, 1 h 3–4 times per Day |
– | – | 0/1 (0) | Not reported |
Feltracco (2009) | RC | 2 | Post lung transplant, and hypoxemia | – | ICU | NIV | Not reported | – | Not reported | 6-8 h per day | FiO2 0.80 | FiO2 0.60 | 0/1 (0) | Not reported |
Valter (2003) | RC | 4 | Hypoxemia | – | ICU | NIV | Not reported | – | Hospital discharge | 1–5 h | FiO2 0.70 [0.60–0.70] RR: 31 (26–38) |
FiO2 0.40 [0.30–0.50] RR: 20 (18–21) |
0/1 (0) | Not reported |
4. Discussion
In this rapid review, we present a synthesis of 35 studies (414 patients) that examined the use of awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. There has been significant attention on its use as a potential treatment for COVID-19 through news organizations, social media, and institutional guidelines. However, the evidence to support prone positioning in this population is limited to uncontrolled prospective or retrospective cohorts and case reports with small sample sizes and limited follow-up.
The cohorts and case studies in this rapid review describe an improvement in oxygenation while patients were in the prone position. The impact of improved oxygenation on clinical outcomes such as survival remains unclear. In contrast to non-intubated patients, prone positioning invasively ventilated patients with moderate-severe ARDS within an ICU is a proven life-saving intervention and is supported by meta-analyses of randomized control trials [4,45,46]. Although many invasively ventilated patients improve their oxygenation when in the prone position, these changes are not associated with survival [47]. The survival benefit is more likely mediated through a reduction in ventilator induced lung injury and not improved oxygenation [47]. Given that non-intubated patients are not at risk for ventilator induced lung injury, potential clinical benefits may be mediated through improved oxygenation, preventing intubation (which can be influenced by clinician decision making and bias), reduced respiratory work, or a reduction in patient self-inflicted lung injury [48].
In this synthesis, many patients receiving awake prone positioning were treated in monitored settings and not general wards (182 of 414 patients, 44%). Key details to offer this intervention safely such as the frequency, duration and adverse events were often not described or provided in limited detail. In six studies, awake prone positioning was not tolerated by some patients for even short durations [10,18,20,24,34,36]. Invasively ventilated patients with ARDS require greater than 12 h of prone positioning to receive a mortality benefit from prone positioning, which often requires sedation and paralysis to be tolerated [45,46]. Furthermore, patients included in this rapid review were heterogeneous in terms of hypoxemia severity. Prone positioning invasively ventilated patients is only beneficial in moderate-severe ARDS, not all severities of hypoxemia [45].
In summary, although awake prone positioning may be a promising therapy for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure (including those with COVID-19), the supporting evidence is limited to case reports and cohort studies. These studies, when synthesized, highlight the lack of key details to inform clinicians and trialists. Many questions remain unanswered when considering the use of awake prone positioning. What are the effects on patient outcomes? What is the optimal frequency and duration? What are the criteria for stopping prone positioning? Which patients are most likely to benefit and which ones should be excluded? What are the potential adverse events that could occur? Ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04402879, NCT04383613, NCT04383613, NCT04350723, NCT04365959, NCT04347941) will be crucial in answering these questions.
Funding
None.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Authors do not report any conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
References
- 1.Lu R., Zhao X., Li J., Niu P., Yang B., Wu H. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):565–574. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zhu N., Zhang D., Wang W., Li X., Yang B., Song J. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):727–733. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wu Z., McGoogan J.M. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Jama. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Guerin C., Reignier J., Richard J.C., Beuret P., Gacouin A., Boulain T. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2159–2168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Organization WH . In: Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected. Do Communications., editor. World Health Organization; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bamford P., Bentley A., Dean J., Whitmore D., Wilson-Baig N. Intensive Care Society; United Kingdom: 2020. ICS guidance for prone positioning of the conscious COVID patient 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Prone Positioning for Non-Intubated Patients Guideline . 2020. Massachusetts General Hospital. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tricco A.C., Antony J., Zarin W., Strifler L., Ghassemi M., Ivory J. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Group P Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [W64] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bastoni D., Poggiali E., Vercelli A., Demichele E., Tinelli V., Iannicelli T. Prone positioning in patients treated with non-invasive ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia in an Italian emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(9):565–566. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cascella M., Mauro I., De Blasio E., Crispo A., Del Gaudio A., Bimonte S. Vol. 56. 8; 2020. Rapid and Impressive Response to a Combined Treatment with Single-Dose Tocilizumab and NIV in a Patient with COVID-19 Pneumonia/ARDS. Medicina (Kaunas) p. E377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Burton-Papp H.C., Jackson A.I.R., Beecham R., Ferrari M., Nasim-Mohi M., Grocott M.P.W. Conscious prone positioning during non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: experience from a single centre. F1000Research. 2020;9(859) doi: 10.12688/f1000research.25384.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Caputo N.D., Strayer R.J., Levitan R. Early self-Proning in awake, non-intubated patients in the emergency department: a single ED’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(5):375–378. doi: 10.1111/acem.13994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cohen D., Wasserstrum Y., Segev A., Avaky C., Negru L., Turpashvili N. Beneficial effect of awake prone position in hypoxaemic patients with COVID-19: case reports and literature review. Intern Med J. 2020 doi: 10.1111/imj.14926. [online ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Coppo A., Bellani G., Winterton D., Di Pierro M., Soria A., Faverio P. 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. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020;8(8):765–774. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30268-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Damarla M., Zaeh S., Niedermeyer S., Merck S., Niranjan-Azadi A., Broderick B. Prone positioning of non-intubated patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(4):604–606. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202004-1331LE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Despres C., Brunin Y., Berthier F., Pili-Floury S., Besch G. Prone positioning combined with high-flow nasal or conventional oxygen therapy in severe Covid-19 patients. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):256. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03001-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ding L., Wang L., Ma W., He H. Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2738-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dong W., Gong Y., Feng J., Bai L., Qing H., Zhou P. Early Awake Prone and Lateral Position in Non-intubated Severe and Critical Patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan: A Respective Cohort Study. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.05.09.20091454. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Elharrar X., Trigui Y., Dols A.M., Touchon F., Martinez S., Prud’homme E. Use of prone positioning in nonintubated patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Jama. 2020;323(22):2336–2338. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Elkattawy S., Noori M. A case of improved oxygenation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patient on nasal cannula undergoing prone positioning. Respir Med Case Rep. 2020;101070 doi: 10.1016/j.rmcr.2020.101070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Feltracco P., Serra E., Barbieri S., Milevoj M., Michieletto E., Carollo C. Noninvasive high-frequency percussive ventilation in the prone position after lung transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2012;44(7):2016–2021. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.05.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Feltracco P., Serra E., Barbieri S., Persona P., Rea F., Loy M. Non-invasive ventilation in prone position for refractory hypoxemia after bilateral lung transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2009;23(5):748–750. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2009.01050.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Froelich S., Mandonnet E., Julla J.B., Touchard C., Laloi-Michelin M., Kevorkian J.P. Towards individualised and optimalised positioning of non-ventilated COVID-19 patients: Putting the affected parts of the lung(s) on top? Diabetes Metab. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2020.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Golestani-Eraghi M., Mahmoodpoor A. Early application of prone position for management of Covid-19 patients. J Clin Anesth. 2020;66:109917. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Huang C.F., Zhuang Y.F., Liu J., Tay C.K., Sewa D.W. Rationale and significance of patient selection in awake prone positioning for COVID-19 pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2020 doi: 10.1183/13993003.02173-2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Moghadam V.D., Shafiee H., Ghorbani M., Heidarifar R. Prone positioning in management of COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020;70(2):188–190. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2020.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ng Z., Tay W.C., Ho C.H.B. Awake prone positioning for non-intubated oxygen dependent COVID-19 pneumonia patients. European Respiratory Journal. 2020;56(1) doi: 10.1183/13993003.02571-2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Paul V., Patel S., Royse M., Odish M., Malhotra A., Koenig S. Proning in non-intubated (PINI) in times of COVID-19: case series and a review. J Intensive Care Med. 2020;35(8):818–824. doi: 10.1177/0885066620934801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Perez-Nieto O.R., Guerrero-Gutierrez M.A., Deloya-Tomas E., Namendys-Silva S.A. Prone positioning combined with high-flow nasal cannula in severe noninfectious ARDS. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2821-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Retucci M., Aliberti S., Ceruti C., Santambrogio M., Tammaro S., Cuccarini F. Prone and lateral positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 pneumonia undergoing noninvasive helmet CPAP treatment. Chest. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ripoll-Gallardo A., Grillenzoni L., Bollon J., Della Corte F., Barone-Adesi F. Prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 outside the intensive care unit: more evidence needed. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020:1–6. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2020.267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Sartini C., Tresoldi M., Scarpellini P., Tettamanti A., Carco F., Landoni G. Respiratory parameters in patients with COVID-19 after using noninvasive ventilation in the prone position outside the intensive care unit. Jama. 2020;323(22):2338–2340. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.7861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Scaravilli V., Grasselli G., Castagna L., Zanella A., Isgro S., Lucchini A. Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a retrospective study. J Crit Care. 2015;30(6):1390–1394. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Slessarev M., Cheng J., Ondrejicka M., Arntfield R. Critical care Western research G. patient self-proning with high-flow nasal cannula improves oxygenation in COVID-19 pneumonia. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(9):1288–1290. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01661-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Solverson K., Weatherald J., Parhar K. Tolerability and Safety of Awake Prone Positioning COVID-19 Patients with Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01787-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Sztajnbok J., Maselli-Schoueri J.H., Cunha de Resende Brasil L.M., Farias de Sousa L., Cordeiro C.M., Sansao Borges L.M. Prone positioning to improve oxygenation and relieve respiratory symptoms in awake, spontaneously breathing non-intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Respir Med Case Rep. 2020;30:101096. doi: 10.1016/j.rmcr.2020.101096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Thompson A.E., Ranard B.L., Wei Y., Jelic S. Prone positioning in awake, nonintubated patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Tu G.W., Liao Y.X., Li Q.Y., Dong H., Yang L.Y., Zhang X.Y. Prone positioning in high-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxemia: a pilot study. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(9):598. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-3005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Valter C., Christensen A.M., Tollund C., Schonemann N.K. Response to the prone position in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2003;47(4):416–418. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2003.00088.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Vibert F., Kretz M., Thuet V., Barthel F., De Marcillac F., Deruelle P. Prone positioning and high-flow oxygen improved respiratory function in a 25-week pregnant woman with COVID-19. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;250:257–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.05.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Whittemore P., Macfarlane L., Herbert A., Farrant J. Use of awake proning to avoid invasive ventilation in a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis. BMJ Case Reports. 2020;13(8) doi: 10.1136/bcr-2020-236586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Xu Q., Wang T., Qin X., Jie Y., Zha L., Lu W. Early awake prone position combined with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in severe COVID-19: a case series. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):250. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02991-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Zang X., Wang Q., Zhou H., Liu S., Xue X. Group C-EPPS. Efficacy of early prone position for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia: a single-center prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020:1–3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06182-4. (%! Efficacy of early prone position for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia: a single-center prospective cohort study %@ 1432–238 (Electronic) 0342–4642 (Print) 0342–4642 (Linking)) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Munshi L., Del Sorbo L., Adhikari N.K.J., Hodgson C.L., Wunsch H., Meade M.O. Prone position for acute respiratory distress syndrome. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2017;14(Supplement_4) doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-343OT. (S280-S8) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sud S., Friedrich J.O., Adhikari N.K., Taccone P., Mancebo J., Polli F. Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2014;186(10) doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140081. [E381–90] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Albert R.K., Keniston A., Baboi L., Ayzac L., Guerin C., Proseva I. Prone position-induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(4):494–496. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201311-2056LE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Telias I., Katira B.H., Brochard L. 2020. Is the prone position helpful during spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19? Jama. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.