From the, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
and the, Emergency Department, Medical Emergencies Discipline, Internal Medicine Department, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Dec;27(12):1249-1259. doi: 10.1111/acem.14160. Epub 2020 Nov 21.
Awake prone positioning has been widely used in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure to avoid intubation despite limited evidence. Our objective was to evaluate if prone positioning is associated with a reduced intubation rate when compared to usual care.
This was a retrospective cohort study in the emergency department of a large quaternary hospital in Sao Paulo. We retrieved data from all admitted patients in need of oxygen supplementation (>3 L/min) and tachypnea (>24 ipm) from March 1 to April 30, 2020, excluding those who had any contraindication to the prone position or who had an immediate need for intubation. The primary endpoint was endotracheal intubation up to 15 days. Secondary outcomes included a 6-point clinical outcome ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation-free days, admission to the intensive care unit, and need of hemodialysis and of vasoactive drugs, all assessed at or up to 15 days. We analyzed unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates with Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression, quantile regression, and sensitivity analyses using propensity score models.
Of 925 suspected COVID-19 patients admitted off mechanical ventilation, 166 patients fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria: 57 were exposed to prone positioning and 109 to usual care. In the intervention group, 33 (58%) were intubated versus 53 (49%) in the control group. We observed no difference in intubation rates in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 1.88, p = 0.39) nor in the adjusted analysis (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.49, p = 0.69). Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses. Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.
Awake prone positioning was not associated with lower intubation rates. Caution is necessary before widespread adoption of this technique, pending results of clinical trials.
尽管证据有限,但清醒俯卧位已被广泛用于治疗 COVID-19 呼吸衰竭患者,以避免插管。我们的目的是评估与常规护理相比,俯卧位是否与降低插管率相关。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,在圣保罗一家大型四级医院的急诊科进行。我们从 2020 年 3 月 1 日至 4 月 30 日检索了所有需要氧补充(>3L/min)和呼吸急促(>24 次/分)的入院患者的数据,排除了那些有俯卧位禁忌症或有立即需要插管的患者。主要终点是 15 天内进行气管插管。次要结果包括 6 分临床结局有序量表、无机械通气天数、入住重症监护病房、需要血液透析和血管活性药物,所有结果均在 15 天内评估。我们使用 Cox 比例风险模型、逻辑回归、分位数回归和倾向评分模型进行了未调整和调整后的效果估计分析。
在 925 例疑似 COVID-19 患者中,有 166 例符合纳入和排除标准:57 例接受俯卧位,109 例接受常规护理。在干预组中,有 33 例(58%)插管,而对照组中有 53 例(49%)。在单变量分析中,我们观察到插管率没有差异(风险比=1.21,95%置信区间[CI]为 0.78 至 1.88,p=0.39),在调整分析中也没有差异(风险比=0.90,95%CI 为 0.55 至 1.49,p=0.69)。结果在敏感性分析中是稳健的。两组间次要结局无差异。
清醒俯卧位并未降低插管率。在临床试验结果公布之前,谨慎采用这种技术是必要的。