Effect of prone positioning on the survival of patients with acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND Although placing patients with acute respiratory failure in a prone (face down) position improves their oxygenation 60 to 70 percent of the time, the effect on survival is not known. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized trial, we compared conventional treatment (in the supine position) of patients with acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome with a predefined strategy of placing patients in a prone position for six or more hours daily for 10 days. We enrolled 304 patients, 152 in each group. RESULTS The mortality rate was 23.0 percent during the 10-day study period, 49.3 percent at the time of discharge from the intensive care unit, and 60.5 percent at 6 months. The relative risk of death in the prone group as compared with the supine group was 0.84 at the end of the study period (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.27), 1.05 at the time of discharge from the intensive care unit (95 percent confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.32), and 1.06 at six months (95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.28). During the study period the mean (+/-SD) increase in the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, measured each morning while patients were supine, was greater in the prone than the supine group (63.0+/-66.8 vs. 44.6+/-68.2, P=0.02). The incidence of complications related to positioning (such as pressure sores and accidental extubation) was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Although placing patients with acute respiratory failure in a prone position improves their oxygenation, it does not improve survival.

[1]  R. Brown,et al.  Use of extreme position changes in acute respiratory failure , 1976, Critical care medicine.

[2]  D Norton,et al.  Calculating the risk: reflections on the Norton Scale. , 1989, Decubitus.

[3]  S. Pocock,et al.  Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach , 1984 .

[4]  W. Knaus,et al.  APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. , 1985 .

[5]  Slutsky As Consensus conference on mechanical ventilation--January 28-30, 1993 at Northbrook, Illinois, USA. Part I. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the ACCP and the SCCM. , 1994 .

[6]  P. Pelosi,et al.  Effects of the prone position on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange during acute lung injury. , 1998, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[7]  S. Lemeshow,et al.  A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study , 1993 .

[8]  A. Nahum,et al.  Prone positioning attenuates and redistributes ventilator‐induced lung injury in dogs , 2000, Critical care medicine.

[9]  M. Lamy,et al.  The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. , 1994, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[10]  D. Schoenfeld,et al.  Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R Rossaint,et al.  Influence of positioning on ventilation-perfusion relationships in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. , 1994, Chest.

[12]  H. Marsh,et al.  Improved oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory failure: the prone position. , 2015, The American review of respiratory disease.