tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Eur J Med Res
. 2024 Dec 30;29(1):636.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02252-1. Effects of innovative modular prone positioning tools in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 during awake prone position: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Dunbing Huang[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Huan Tian[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Wei Song[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jiaqi Wang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Zizhe Yao[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lize Xiong[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Cai Jiang[SUP] 5 6 [/SUP], Anren Zhang[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Xiaohua Ke[SUP] 8 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Objectives: Our aim is to investigate the effects of a innovative modular prone positioning tools on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 during awake prone positioning (AW-PP).
Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study initially enrolled 168 patients with COVID-19 due to ARDS. However, 92 were subsequently disqualified, leaving 76 patients who were randomly assigned to either the observation group (n = 38) or the control group (n = 38). The observation group utilized innovative modular prone positioning tools for non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS), while the control group used soft pillows for the same treatment. Data were collected on comfort levels, adverse events, and efficacy indicators. Additionally, the comfort, incidence of adverse events, and treatment efficacy in both groups were evaluated.
Results: The observation group had shorter the daily duration spent on executing the AW-PP (2.74 ± 0.86 min vs. 4.64 ± 1.02 min, P < 0.001), longer the daily total AW-PP (8.52 ± 1.01 h vs. 6.03 ± 0.66 h, P < 0.001), longer the daily duration until the first position adjustment (59.89 ± 12.73 min vs. 36.57 ± 8.69 min, P < 0.001), and lower the daily frequency of position adjustments during the AW-PP (11.03 ± 2.67 vs. 17.95 ± 2.58, P < 0.001) in comparison with the control group. No significant differences were observed in intubation rates, mortality, the daily number of hours under HFNO and NIV, escalated to NIV from HFNO, and hospital length of stay between the groups (P > 0.05). However, the observation group experienced significantly fewer adverse events, including kinking NIRS circuit, pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, and pressure ulcers (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Innovative modular prone positioning tools improved efficiency, comfort, and reduced adverse events during AW-PP but did not affect intubation rates or mortality.
Keywords: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Awake prone position; COVID-19; Innovative modular prone positioning tools; Randomized controlled trial.
. 2024 Dec 30;29(1):636.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-02252-1. Effects of innovative modular prone positioning tools in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 during awake prone position: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Dunbing Huang[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Huan Tian[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Wei Song[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jiaqi Wang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Zizhe Yao[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Lize Xiong[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Cai Jiang[SUP] 5 6 [/SUP], Anren Zhang[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Xiaohua Ke[SUP] 8 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 39734220
- DOI: 10.1186/s40001-024-02252-1
Objectives: Our aim is to investigate the effects of a innovative modular prone positioning tools on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 during awake prone positioning (AW-PP).
Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study initially enrolled 168 patients with COVID-19 due to ARDS. However, 92 were subsequently disqualified, leaving 76 patients who were randomly assigned to either the observation group (n = 38) or the control group (n = 38). The observation group utilized innovative modular prone positioning tools for non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS), while the control group used soft pillows for the same treatment. Data were collected on comfort levels, adverse events, and efficacy indicators. Additionally, the comfort, incidence of adverse events, and treatment efficacy in both groups were evaluated.
Results: The observation group had shorter the daily duration spent on executing the AW-PP (2.74 ± 0.86 min vs. 4.64 ± 1.02 min, P < 0.001), longer the daily total AW-PP (8.52 ± 1.01 h vs. 6.03 ± 0.66 h, P < 0.001), longer the daily duration until the first position adjustment (59.89 ± 12.73 min vs. 36.57 ± 8.69 min, P < 0.001), and lower the daily frequency of position adjustments during the AW-PP (11.03 ± 2.67 vs. 17.95 ± 2.58, P < 0.001) in comparison with the control group. No significant differences were observed in intubation rates, mortality, the daily number of hours under HFNO and NIV, escalated to NIV from HFNO, and hospital length of stay between the groups (P > 0.05). However, the observation group experienced significantly fewer adverse events, including kinking NIRS circuit, pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, and pressure ulcers (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Innovative modular prone positioning tools improved efficiency, comfort, and reduced adverse events during AW-PP but did not affect intubation rates or mortality.
Keywords: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Awake prone position; COVID-19; Innovative modular prone positioning tools; Randomized controlled trial.