Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (Nov 2022)

Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Ee Xin Chua,
  • Zhen Zhe Wong,
  • Mohd Shahnaz Hasan,
  • Rafidah Atan,
  • Nor'azim Mohd Yunos,
  • Hing Wa Yip,
  • Wan Yi Teoh,
  • Mohd Afiq Syahmi Ramli,
  • Ka Ting Ng

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 72, no. 6
pp. 780 – 789

Abstract

Read online

Background: The efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) in intubated COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded. Results: Eleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low). Conclusion: Prone ventilation improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SpO2 in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.

Keywords