Abstract:Several lines of evidence attest that ventilation in prone position may significantly improve lung function in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to the more uniform distribution of tidal volume and improved recruitment, which contribute to ameliorate the ventilation–perfusion ratio.[1] Nevertheless, the overall clinical benefit of long periods of pronation over the supine position during mechanical ventilation remains controversial, even in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related ARDS.[1] A recent meta-analysis of seven retrospective cohort studies including 5216 COVID-19 patients concluded that intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was higher in the prone position, while no significant differences were found in terms of cumulative or hospital mortality, length of stay in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation between prone and supine positions.[2] In addition, there is evidence that the prone position may have several adverse side effects, some of which are clearly acknowledged (e.g., pressure ulcers, nerve injury, bleeding, displacement of medical devices, etc.),[3] while others are often overlooked. The risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in prone patients who are already at increased risk of thrombosis due to COVID-19 is one such underestimated complication. Using a simple search in PubMed and Scopus with the keywords "prone" and "COVID-19" and "pulmonary embolism" or "deep vein thrombosis" or "venous thromboembolism" with no language or time restrictions, we identified 58 studies, 4 of which (all cross-sectional, case reports were excluded) described the occurrence of VTE episodes in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen support due to respiratory impairment and/or failure ([Table 1]). Authors Study design Population VTE (prone vs. supine) Soumagne et al 2020[4] Cross-sectional 44 COVID-19 patients mechanically ventilated in the ICU The number of prone positions per patient and the cumulative number of days spent in prone position were significantly higher in patients with acute PE than in those without. Gebhard et al 2021[5] Cross-sectional 21 COVID-19 patients mechanically ventilated in the ICU Prone position time was longer in patients diagnosed with DVT compared with those who were not. Massart et al 2023[6] Cross-sectional 153 COVID-19 patients mechanically ventilated and treated with ECMO Rate of PE 2-fold higher in patients maintained in prone position Bargoud et al 2023[7] Cross-sectional 184 COVID-19 patients with nonmechanical oxygen supply Rate of PE 3-fold higher in patients maintained in prone position Abbreviations: COVID-19, coronavirus diseases 2019; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ICU, intensive care unit; PE, pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism. In the first study, Soumagne et al[4] studied 44 COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS and had to be admitted to the ICU with mechanical ventilation (mean age: 64 ± 12 years; 82% men). Seventeen (38.6%) of these patients developed acute pulmonary embolism (PE), whereas 27 did not. The number of prone positions per patient (5.3 ± 2.4 vs. 3.2 ± 2.3; p = 0.04) and the cumulative number of days spent in the prone position (7.5 ± 2.7 vs. 4.8 ± 3.1; p = 0.03) was significantly higher in patients with acute PE than in those without. In another study published by Gebhard et al,[5] the authors screened for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) 21 COVID-19 patients (median age, 64 years, interquartile range [IQR], 58–68 years; 76 men) who developed ARDS and required intensive management. After 7 days in the ICU, the prone position time was found to be longer in patients who were diagnosed with DVT ( n = 11; median prone positioning time, 71 hours; IQR: 19–104 hours) compared with those who were not ( n = 10; median prone positioning time, 28 hours; IQR: 0–73 hours; p = 0.01). Massart et al studied 517 patients (mean age: 55 years: IQR: 47–61 years; 78% men) with COVID-19-related ARDS,[6] who needed veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), either maintained in prone or supine position during mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a subgroup analysis of matched cohorts (153 pairs of patients in prone or supine positioning), the rate of DVT was similar between groups (9.2% prone vs. 10.5% supine position; p = 0.848), whereas that of PE was almost double (but without achieving clinical significance, probably because of the relatively low number of thrombotic episodes) in patients in prone position compared with those supine (10.5% prone vs. 5.2% supine position; p = 0.137; odds ratio: 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9–5.1). Bargoud et al studied a coho -Abstract Truncated-

Impact of prone position on dead-space fraction in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome

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

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

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

Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related ARDS: benefits and detriments

[Prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults : Update on the physiological effects, indications and implementation]

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

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

The effects of prone position ventilation on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome after cardiac surgery

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

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

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

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

Physiological effects and safety of bed verticalization in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Increased physiological dead space in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients recovering from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a case report

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in ARDS patients: the impact of prone positioning. A secondary analysis of the PROSEVA trial

Is prone positioning a valid intervention for ARDS in the deployed intensive care unit?

Prone Position and the Risk of Venous Thrombosis in COVID-19 Patients with Respiratory Failure