Abstract:Manel Luján 1,2 , Javier Sayas 3 1 Servei de Pneumologia, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Institut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT-CERCA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain; 2 Centro de Investigacion Biomédica en Red (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain; 3 Pulmonology Service, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Comment on: Nay MA, Hindre R, Perrin C, et al . Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial. Crit Care 2023;27:240. Keywords: Acute respiratory failure (ARF); coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); non-invasive respiratory support Submitted Oct 13, 2023. Accepted for publication Nov 24, 2023. Published online Dec 11, 2023. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1588 The prone position has been used in the management of severe acute respiratory failure (ARF) since the 1970s (1). In one of the first reports, Mellins et al. observed that patients with advanced cystic fibrosis spontaneously adopted the prone position to improve ventilation (2). From these early experiences, the beneficial effects of the prone position began to be documented. In the supine position, the dorsal areas of the lung are compressed by the weight of the mediastinal structures, the pleural pressure gradient, and the rest of the lung itself. In contrast, in the prone position, these areas are relieved of this pressure, with an increase in functional residual capacity, resulting in improved ventilation/perfusion ratio, cardiac output, and diaphragm function (3). Prone positioning in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients has been shown to improve pulmonary gas exchange and lung mechanics in patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. In fact, it is part of most intensive care unit protocols. There are current guidelines (4) that support this intervention in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), specifying that patients must be in the prone position for at least 16 hours per day to be effective. During the coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic, different strategies have been tried in the management of patients with COVID and moderate hypoxaemia to prevent worsening of the disease. Perhaps the most studied has been the early administration of therapy with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Crimi et al. found no significant difference in disease progression in a cohort of patients with an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO 2 )/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) ratio between 200 and 300 after randomisation to high flow or conventional oxygen therapy (5). In contrast, differences in intubation rates have been demonstrated in patients with PaO 2 /FiO 2 below 200 (6,7). Awake proning position (APP) has been also used as a strategy, suggesting that it could improve the prognosis of non-intubated patients with moderate or severe respiratory failure. The aim of APP would be to prevent the progression of ARF, thereby reducing the need for orotracheal intubation and ultimately improving survival. Some early studies demonstrated a lower rate of intubation in patients under APP (8). However, the results of the studies are conflicting and merit careful consideration (9). Although considered a non-invasive treatment, tolerance to APP is highly variable, with most patients not tolerating it for long periods of time. For example, in the meta-trial published by Ehrmann et al. , which included 6 RCTs, the number of hours of pronation per day ranged from 1.6 to 8 hours (10). Some other studies achieved a mean duration of 12 hours in the first day of admission to intensive care unit (ICU) (11). Although no ideal number of hours of compliance has been defined for awake patients, in the aforementioned meta-trial, the rate of APP failure and progression of lung disease was significantly lower in patients with longer hours of compliance. Table 1 shows the most relevant studies on APP. APP, awake prone position; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; RCT, randomized control trial; ICU, intensive care unit; NIV, non-invasive ventilation; HFNC, high flow nasal cannula; NIRS, noninvasive ventilator support. But the question did not stop at critical care. In a randomised controlled trial, Nay et al. recruited 265 patients on inpatient wards in 15 hospitals. Patients were randomised to awake proning plus usual care in the intervention arm and usual care in the control arm. The target time interval for patients to be in the prone position was 270 min/day. The results of the study showed no significant differences in the primary composite endpoint [non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death] but did show differences in intubation and death ( -Abstract Truncated-

Early versus late awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19

Factors for success of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Importance of Timing and Training to Implement Awake Prone Positioning in Patients with COVID-19: a Single-Center Prospective Observational Study

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Effectiveness of Prolonged Awake Prone Positioning in Preventing Intubation among Less Severely Patients with COVID-19-Related Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Changes in Oxygenation and Clinical Outcomes with Awake Prone Positioning in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 In Low-Resource Settings: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: An international expert guidance

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study

Prone Position Improves Survival rate of Covid-19 Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Patients by Improving Oxygenation Index

Optimal timing for awake prone positioning in Covid-19 patients: Insights from an observational study from two centers

Prone positioning in awake patients without ventilatory support does not alter major clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19: results from a retrospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

The Application of Awake-Prone Positioning Among Non-intubated Patients With COVID-19-Related ARDS: A Narrative Review

Efficacy of early prone or lateral positioning in patients with severe COVID-19: a single-center prospective cohort

Awake prone positioning of hypoxaemic patients with COVID-19: protocol for a randomised controlled open-label superiority meta-trial

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Prolonged vs shorter awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure: a multicenter, randomised controlled trial

When hope meets reality: the challenges of awake proning in unmonitored settings

Early prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19: a propensity score analysis from the multicentric cohort COVID-ICU network-the ProneCOVID study

Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial