4.5 Article

Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A retrospective study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 1390-1394

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.07.008

Keywords

Prone position; Pulmonary gas exchange; Hypoxia; Pulmonary ventilation; Noninvasive ventilation; Retrospective studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and outcome of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing invasive ventilation. We evaluated feasibility and efficacy of PP in awake, non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). Material and Methods: We retrospectively studied non-intubated subjects with hypoxemic ARF treated with PP from January 2009 to December 2014. Data were extracted from medical records. Arterial blood gas analyses, respiratory rate, and hemodynamics were retrieved 1 to 2 hours before pronation (step PRE), during PP (step PRONE), and 6 to 8 hours after resupination (step POST). Results: Fifteen non-intubated ARF patients underwent 43 PP procedures. Nine subjects were immunocompromised. Twelve subjects were discharged from hospital, while 3 died. Only 2 maneuvers were interrupted, owing to patient intolerance. No complications were documented. PP did not alter respiratory rate or hemodynamics. In the subset of procedures during which the same positive end expiratory pressure and FIO2 were utilized throughout the pronation cycle (n = 18), PP improved oxygenation (Pao(2)/FIo(2) 124 +/- 50 mmHg, 187 +/- 72 mmHg, and 140 +/- 61 mmHg, during PRE, PRONE, and POST steps, respectively, P < .001), while pH and PaCo2 were unchanged. Conclusions: PP was feasible and improved oxygenation in non-intubated, spontaneously breathing patients with ARF. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available