Abstract:Mohamed Fayed 1 , Wissam Maroun 2 1 Department of Anesthesia, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 2 Department of Anesthesia, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA 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: Respiratory failure; outcomes; mortality; coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); awake prone position Submitted Sep 03, 2023. Accepted for publication Dec 04, 2023. Published online Jan 11, 2024. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1389 The advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented an unprecedented challenge to the medical field, necessitating innovative approaches to address the severe respiratory symptoms linked to the virus. Influenced by its success in treating acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prone positioning as a rescue maneuver, after the lack of improvement under optimal ventilatory settings, was used for COVID-19 patients. However, it's noteworthy that COVID-19 pneumonia diverges from traditional ARDS in several key aspects. Autopsies of COVID-19 pneumonia fatalities have revealed distinctive features like hyaline membrane changes and micro-vessel thrombosis, uncommon in classic ARDS cases (1-4). Furthermore, the anatomical presentation of COVID-19 pneumonia differs, with predominant bilateral, peripheral, and multilobar ground-glass opacities on computed tomography (CT) scans, deviating from the characteristic involvement of dependent lung regions observed in ARDS (5). Consequently, the efficacy of prone positioning in ameliorating ventilation-perfusion mismatch might not be as pronounced due to the atypical location of lung abnormalities. In the context of ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, research suggests that prone positioning may not significantly alter the respiratory system and lung mechanics. This indicates that lung aeration tends to remain preserved in COVID-19 pneumonia patients and might even trend towards deterioration due to ventilation in the prone position (6). Paradoxically, this finding suggests that despite severe lung damage, lung mechanics might present as normal during COVID-19 pneumonia, and trans-pulmonary pressures could remain below detrimental thresholds (6). The effectiveness of prone positioning as a therapeutic approach for COVID-19 patients remains a topic of debate due to conflicting findings from various studies. In a randomized trial involving awake patients across fifteen hospitals in North America, patients were assigned to either prone positioning or standard treatment, both groups showing similar clinical outcomes, including mortality rates, need for mechanical ventilation, and respiratory failure worsening (7). Another meta-trial spanning six countries indicated that awake-prone positioning reduced treatment failure and intubation needs in hypoxemic respiratory failure cases without significant mortality improvement (8). Conversely, a meta-analysis encompassing mechanically ventilated patients showed no reduction in mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, or mechanical ventilation duration in prone positioned patients (9,10). Some of the studies included in this meta-analysis had limitations that were addressed (11-13). The study conducted by Nay et al. (14) aimed to assess the effectiveness of prone positioning as a treatment for less severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The study was conducted as a randomized trial with patients from France and Monaco, from August 2020 to January 2022 and involved 268 awake patients who were admitted for COVID-19 in 15 medical wards at 12 hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to either the prone positioning group or the usual care group. In the prone positioning group, patients were placed in a prone position for a minimum of two sessions with a cumulative time of at least 150 minutes during the daytime. Prone positioning was allowed at night if it was the patient's natural sleeping position. Patients in the usual care group were kept in the semi-sitting position in bed or a chair during the daytime. The results showed that the patients in the prone positioning group received at least one session of prone positioning, with 74.8% of patients proned on the day of enrollment. The median time spent in the prone position per day during the daytime was 138 minutes. Some patients experienced intolerance or refusal, resulting in 12.1% of patients having at least one day without prone positioning. Thirty-one-point-one percent of patients in the prone positioning group laid prone for more than 2 hours each day during the daytime. Patients in the usual care group did not use prone positioning during the daytime, except for one patient. The primary outcome was the rate of non-invasive v -Abstract Truncated-

The effect of prone-position ventilatory strategy among neurology patients with SARS-CoV-2: A cross-sectional survey

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

Physiological effect of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated SARS-CoV-2- infected patients with severe ARDS: An observational study

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

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

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

Construction and application of prone position ventilation management scheme for severe COVID-19 patients

Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019

Effect of awake prone position on diaphragmatic thickening fraction in patients assisted by noninvasive ventilation for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure related to novel coronavirus disease

Effects of Prone Position on Lung Recruitment and Ventilation-Perfusion Matching in Patients With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Combined CT Scan/Electrical Impedance Tomography Study

Lung Recruitment, Individualized PEEP, and Prone Position Ventilation for COVID-19-Associated Severe ARDS: A Single Center Observational Study

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

Awake prone positioning in COVID-19 patients: is there any benefit?

Complications associated with prone positioning in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: A multicentre, retrospective observational study

Respiratory effects of prone position in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome differ according to the recruitment-to-inflation ratio: a prospective observational study

Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Assessment of respiratory support decision and the outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 with ARDS

Lung Mechanics of Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19: Analytics With High-Granularity Ventilator Waveform Data

Effect of Extended Prone Positioning in Intubated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prone Position in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Study

Extent and Distribution of Parenchymal Abnormalities in Baseline CT-Scans Do Not Predict Awake Prone Positioning Response in COVID-19 Related ARDS