JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW

Prone Position for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laveena Munshi, Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Neill K J Adhikari, Carol L Hodgson, Hannah Wunsch, Maureen O Meade, Elizabeth Uleryk, Jordi Mancebo, Antonio Pesenti, V Marco Ranieri, Eddy Fan
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2017, 14 (Supplement_4): S280-S288
29068269

RATIONALE: The application of prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has evolved, with recent trials focusing on patients with more severe ARDS, and applying prone ventilation for more prolonged periods.

OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates the effect of prone positioning on 28-day mortality (primary outcome) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the supine position for adults with ARDS.

METHODS: We updated the literature search from a systematic review published in 2010, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to August 2016). We included randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prone to supine positioning in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the effects of duration of prone ventilation, concurrent lung-protective ventilation and ARDS severity. Secondary outcomes included PaO2 /FiO2 ratio on Day 4 and an evaluation of adverse events. Meta-analyses used random effects models. Methodologic quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias instrument, and methodologic quality of the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines.

RESULTS: Eight RCTs fulfilled entry criteria, and included 2,129 patients (1,093 [51%] proned). Meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.04), but subgroup analyses found lower mortality with 12 hours or greater duration prone (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99) and for patients with moderate to severe ARDS (five trials; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.99). PaO2 /FiO2 ratio on Day 4 for all patients was significantly higher in the prone positioning group (mean difference, 23.5; 95% CI, 12.4-34.5). Prone positioning was associated with higher rates of endotracheal tube obstruction and pressure sores. Risk of bias was low across the trials.

CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning is likely to reduce mortality among patients with severe ARDS when applied for at least 12 hours daily.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
29068269
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"