Skip to main content

Effect of prone positioning on oxygenation and static respiratory system compliance in COVID-19 ARDS vs. non-COVID ARDS

Abstract

Background

Prone positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.

Methods

We retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome.

Results

When compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2–73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1–5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85–144) vs. 35 (IQR 6–52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3–7.7) vs. − 1.0 (IQR − 3.7–3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression.

Conclusions

In patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

Background

After its first outbreak in Wuhan, China in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread rapidly around the world and continues to be a global threat [1]. Although most patients with COVID-19 have mild manifestations, the condition deteriorates in approximately 10–20% of patients, requiring admission to an intensive care unit and invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [2,3,4]. Whether ARDS due to COVID-19 (COVID-19 ARDS) is clinically distinct from ARDS due to other causes (non-COVID ARDS) has been a controversial issue [5, 6].

Prone positioning is currently implemented for patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS with the potential to reduce mortality [7]. The beneficial effect of prone positioning on oxygenation has been known for decades, but whether the improvement in oxygenation is directly associated with patients’ survival gain has been questionable [8]. We have recently shown that the extent of improvement in the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) after prone positioning could be a predictor of survival of patients with ARDS [9].

In this study, we aimed to investigate whether physiological responses to prone positioning differ between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS, focusing not only on oxygenation, but also on static respiratory system compliance (Crs), considering recent studies that reported a prognostic value of static Crs for COVID-19 ARDS [10, 11]. We also evaluated whether the response to the first session of prone positioning was associated with patients’ clinical outcome.

Methods

Patients with COVID-19 ARDS

This study was a retrospective cohort study using the patients’ medical records conducted at the Seoul National University Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in South Korea, which has served as a nationally designated hospital for patients with severe and critical COVID-19. This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. 2012-036-1179). We reviewed the records of all patients older than 18 years who were admitted to our center between January and December 2020 after being diagnosed as having COVID-19 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. Among such patients, those for whom mechanical ventilation was initiated and prone positioning was implemented were included in this study.

Treatment and prone positioning

Patients with COVID-19 ARDS were treated based on the most updated evidence at the time of their hospitalization [12, 13]. In patients with worsening respiratory failure, we usually used a high flow nasal cannula at first, but mechanical ventilation with endotracheal intubation was initiated in refractory cases [14]. If PaO2/FiO2 ratio after initiation of mechanical ventilation was less than 200 mmHg, we actively considered prone positioning with neuromuscular blockade [7, 15]. Prone position was maintained for at least 16 h per day [7]. Discontinuation of prone positioning was considered if reduction in ventilator assistance was possible allowing for spontaneous or assisted ventilation.

Comparison with non-COVID ARDS

We reviewed every patient with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation since January 2014 until December 2020, and the cohort of these patients was used for a comparison between COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID ARDS. Some of these patients were included in our previous study [9]. First, we used the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS while adjusting for the between-group differences. Second, for a more accurate comparison, patients with COVID-19 ARDS were matched with subgroup populations among the non-COVID ARDS group: one matched 1:1 for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and one matched 1:1 for static Crs.

Study outcome and data collection

The primary outcome of this study was the extent of changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs after the first prone positioning session. In each patient, the changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs were tracked during the first prone positioning session. Using the results of arterial blood gas analysis and the ventilator setting at the time of blood sampling, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs were evaluated at four timepoints for each patient: baseline (before initiation of prone positioning), P1 (approximately 10 h after initiation of prone positioning), P2 (approximately 16 h after initiation of prone positioning, which is the last timepoint before cessation of prone positioning), and S1 (approximately 2 h after changing to supine position). For the main outcome of this study, each patient’s response to the first session of prone positioning was calculated as the difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs between the baseline and P2 timepoints. In addition, we aimed to evaluate whether the physiological responses to prone positioning correlate with the clinical outcomes of patients, given the controversial results of previous studies [9, 16].

Statistical analysis

We assessed the differences between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS and P values of < 0.05 for two-tailed tests were considered statistically significant. First, all patients with non-COVID ARDS were compared with patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Then, two subgroup populations of patients with non-COVID ARDS were used for 1:1 matched comparison with patients with COVID-19 ARDS (PaO2/FiO2-matched subgroup and compliance-matched subgroup). The matching was performed using an optimal algorithm without replacement [17].

For each patient, the Wilcoxon singed-rank test was used to compare the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs between different timepoints Then, the extent of changes in these parameters from baseline to P2 timepoints was compared between the COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID ARDS groups using multivariable linear regression analysis. Comparisons between the matched samples were performed similarly [18]. Because there are no definite well-known predictors for response to prone positioning, we adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of mechanical ventilation before the initiation of prone positioning, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and baseline setting of mechanical ventilator (positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] and tidal volume) as well as baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio, static Crs, and ventilatory ratio. Ventilatory ratio was selected as a parameter to assess the efficacy of ventilation because we did not routinely monitor the expired CO2 level [19].

For patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated using prone positioning, we assessed whether the response of PaO2/FiO2 and static Crs could predict patients’ probability of successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation within 90 days using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, the Fine and Gray competing risk regression analysis was performed to calculate the subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for age, sex, SOFA score, CCI, and baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs [20, 21]. Death occurring during mechanical ventilation was considered as the competing event. Patients who were still dependent on mechanical ventilation were censored at 90 days after the first prone positioning session. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA software (version 14.0; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Clinical characteristics of patients

Until December 2020, 46 patients with COVID-19 ARDS were treated at our center using mechanical ventilation. Among them, 23 patients (50%) did not start prone positioning because their oxygenation status rapidly improved after initiation of mechanical ventilation. The remaining 23 patients (50%) were treated using prone positioning for persistent moderate-to-severe ARDS. The median interval between the diagnosis of COVID-19 and initiation of prone positioning was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–12) days. To compare with patients with COVID-19 ARDS, 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning were reviewed and among them, two subgroups of 23 patients (1:1 matched for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs, respectively) were selected.

Comparison of baseline characteristics and respiratory mechanics between these groups are described in Tables 1, 2. The patients with non-COVID ARDS had more comorbidities and they were more severely ill with more organ dysfunctions and higher SOFA scores than the patients with COVID-19 ARDS. They also showed worse oxygenation (median PaO2/FiO2 ratio 96 vs. 107 mmHg, P = 0.037) and lower static Crs (median 21.9 vs. 27.2 mL/cmH2O, P = 0.005). All patients in both groups received ventilation with low tidal volume, but patients with non-COVID ARDS had higher ventilatory ratio (median 2.2 vs. 1.7, P < 0.001), requiring higher minute ventilation (median 177 vs. 140 mL/kg/min, P < 0.001). Among the patients with non-COVID ARDS, 1:1 matching was well performed, showing no between-group differences in the median values of PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs in PaO2/FiO2-matched and compliance-matched samples, respectively.

Table 1 Patient characteristics
Table 2 Baseline respiratory mechanics and clinical outcomes

Oxygenation and static compliance responses

The changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs after the first session of prone positioning are described in Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Table S1. Baseline measurements were performed at a median of 1.3 (IQR 0.7–2.8) hours before initiation of prone positioning. Measurements for P1 and P2 timepoints were performed at a median of 9.7 (IQR 7.6–11.2) hours and 16.0 (IQR 13.5–17.8) hours after initiation of prone positioning, respectively. Most patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed improvement in both PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs after prone positioning. The increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio was the most prominent at the P1 timepoint and it slightly decreased when patients were moved to a supine position (Fig. 1A and Additional file 1: Table S1). The static Crs showed a continuous gradual increase during the first prone positioning session (Fig. 1B and Additional file 1: Table S1). A detailed comparison between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS is presented in Table 3.

Fig. 1
figure1

Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance after the first session of prone positioning. A PaO2/FiO2 ratio; B Static respiratory system compliance

Table 3 PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance responses after the first prone positioning session

When comparing baseline and P2 timepoints, the absolute improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio was higher in patients with COVID-19 ARDS [median 89.8 (IQR 35.3–135.2) mmHg] than in patients with non-COVID ARDS [median 40.1 (IQR 7.0–77.5) mmHg]. The difference between the two groups remained significant after adjusting for other variables when the analysis was conducted using the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2–73.5) mmHg]. However, when compared with the matched subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS, it was not significant [adjusted difference 4.0 (95% CI − 62.9–71.0) mmHg in PaO2/FiO2-matched samples and 58.4 (95% CI − 13.5–130.2) mmHg in compliance-matched samples].

The absolute change in static Crs between baseline and P2 timepoints was also higher in patients with COVID-19 ARDS [median 3.7 (IQR − 1.0–7.3) mL/cmH2O] than in patients with non-COVID ARDS [median − 0.3 (IQR − 4.0–1.9) mL/cmH2O]. However, similar to the case of PaO2/FiO2 ratio, after adjusting for other variables, this difference in static Crs was significant only when the analysis was conducted using the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1–5.6) mL/cmH2O]. The significance was lost in the analysis of matched samples [adjusted difference 0.3 (95% CI − 3.3–3.8) mL/cmH2O in PaO2/FiO2-matched samples and 2.2 (95% CI − 2.4–6.7) mL/cmH2O in compliance-matched samples].

As a sensitivity analysis, we compared the relative percentage changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs between the two groups (COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID ARDS). The relative percentage change was calculated as the absolute change divided by the baseline reference value. The results of this sensitivity analysis were similar to those of the main analysis (Additional file 1: Table S2). The unmatched analysis suggested that the relative percentage improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs was more prominent in patients with COVID-19 ARDS than in patients with non-COVID ARDS. However, the significance was lost in the analysis of matched samples.

Given that the respiratory distress in patients with non-COVID ARDS had various underlying causes, we performed a subgroup analysis according to the etiology of ARDS in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Of 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS, pneumonia was the leading cause of ARDS in 124 patients (85.5%). We compared patients by dividing them into three groups: COVID-19 ARDS, non-COVID ARDS due to pneumonia, and non-COVID ARDS not due to pneumonia (Additional file 1: Table S3). Among the patients with non-COVID ARDS, oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning did not differ regardless of whether the underlying cause was pneumonia or not.

Association between clinical outcomes

In patients with COVID-19 ARDS, successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was achieved in 16 of 23 patients (69.6%) within 90 days after the first session of prone positioning. We evaluated whether the changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs after the first prone positioning session were associated with successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio was more pronounced in patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation than in those who did not [median 112 (IQR 85–144) vs. 35 (IQR 6–52) mmHg, P = 0.003]. In patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation, static Crs increased by a median of 5.7 (IQR 3.3–7.7) mL/cmH2O, whereas in patients who did not, it decreased by a median of 1.0 (IQR − 3.0–3.7) mL/cmH2O (P = 0.006).

In ROC analysis, the areas under the curve were 0.893 (0.754–1.000) for the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and 0.866 (0.714–1.000) for the change in static Crs in predicting successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation within 90 days (Fig. 2). In competing risk regression analysis, the extent of improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio (SHR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30 per 10 mmHg increase) and static Crs (SHR 1.57, 95% CI 1.29–1.91 per 1 mL/cmH2O increase) after the first prone positioning session were both associated with successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (Table 4). Among other variables, female sex, lower SOFA score, and higher baseline static Crs were associated with higher probability of successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation.

Fig. 2
figure2

Receiver operating characteristic curve for changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance in predicting the successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. A PaO2/FiO2 ratio; B Static respiratory system compliance

Table 4 Predictors of successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation for patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Literature review for related studies

Given the limited sample size of our study, we performed additional literature review for other related studies investigating the physiological effects of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS (Table 5). As of June 2021, we were able to identify 16 studies, and all studies retrieved showed that prone positioning substantially improves oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. However, responses of static Crs varied between the studies.

Table 5 Literature review for studies evaluating efficacy of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Discussion

In this study, we compared the physiological response of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID ARDS, focusing on changes in oxygenation and static Crs. Most patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs after the first session of prone positioning. The extent of improvement in these parameters appeared to be higher in patients with COVID-19 ARDS when compared crudely with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS. However, when 1:1 matched samples (PaO2/FiO2-matched and compliance-matched) were analyzed, the physiological response to prone positioning was not different between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.

Whether patients with COVID-19 ARDS have a clinically different phenotype compared with those with typical non-COVID ARDS continues to be a controversial issue [5, 22]. One of the issues related to this controversy is regarding static Crs. Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, some patients with COVID-19 ARDS have been reported to have preserved static Crs despite impaired oxygenation, which is referred to as “type L (low elastance) phenotype” compared with “type H (high elastance) phenotype” [22, 23]. A multicenter study in Italy reported that patients with COVID-19 ARDS had higher median static Crs than those with non-COVID ARDS (41 vs. 32 mL/cmH2O), although there was a substantial overlap between the two groups [11]. However, in several other studies, patients with COVID-19 ARDS presented with static Crs of approximately 30–35 mL/cmH2O, which is similar to that in previous reports of typical non-COVID ARDS [6, 10, 24,25,26,27].

In our study, patients in both groups showed substantially reduced static Crs (median 27.2 and 21.9 mL/cmH2O in COVID-19 and non-COVID group, respectively). Especially, patients with non-COVID ARDS in this study had extremely poor static Crs considering that a recent secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, which included a large multinational cohort of patients, reported the median static Crs of 30 mL/cmH2O [28]. This may be due to the selection bias that occurs in single-center studies. In fact, we could not identify any patient in either group (COVID-19 or non-COVID) who can be classified as having type L phenotype (static Crs ≥ 50 mL/cmH2O). Therefore, our findings may not be applicable to patients with type L phenotype.

Almost every patient with COVID-19 ARDS in this study showed improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio after prone positioning. Such improvement was rapid and most noticeable after 10 h of prone positioning. This finding is consistent with that of another single-center study of intubated patients with COVID-19 treated using prone positioning, which reported that PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved within 2 h after initiation of prone positioning [29]. In a prospective study of prone positioning in nonintubated patients, improvement in oxygenation was observed even 10 min after initiation of prone positioning [30]. In contrast, a previous study on non-COVID ARDS showed that the oxygenation status was not always improved immediately after initiation of prone positioning [31]. In other studies, including the PROSEVA trial, PaO2/FiO2 ratio was higher at the end of the prone positioning session than at 1 h after initiation of prone positioning, which is similar to our findings for patients with non-COVID ARDS [7, 32]. Based on these findings, it can be suggested that the speed of the oxygenation response after prone positioning may differ between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. Because PaO2/FiO2 ratio cannot be monitored on real-time basis, monitoring oxygenation based on SpO2/FiO2 ratio might provide more information on this issue.

The change in static Crs after prone positioning has not been studied as much as the change in oxygenation. In one study, static Crs was improved with prone positioning when it was accompanied only with application of high PEEP, but not with low PEEP [33]. Crs is determined by compliance of the chest wall and lung. Because chest wall compliance usually decreases during prone positioning, the overall change in Crs after prone positioning depends on how much the compliance of the lung improves, which may be related to lung recruitability [8]. In our study, the extent of improvement in static Crs after prone positioning appeared to be higher in patients with COVID-19 ARDS than in patients with non-COVID ARDS in a crude analysis. However, the difference was not significant when the analysis was performed using the matched samples. In addition to static Crs, it may be useful to monitor the lung recruitability while implementing prone positioning [34,35,36,37].

The major finding of our study was that oxygenation and Crs responses after prone positioning were not different between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS after careful matching and adjusting for baseline between-group differences. It is intriguing that the unmatched analysis suggested that prone positioning was more effective in patients with COVID-19 ARDS than in those with non-COVID ARDS. However, this finding may have resulted from the effects of unmeasured confounding factors, suggesting that our 1:1 matched analysis is more appropriate for a proper comparison. Taking the findings of both unmatched and 1:1 matched analyses into account, the physiological effects of prone positioning in COVID-19 ARDS may be comparable with, or at least not inferior to, those in typical non-COVID ARDS.

In fact, because non-COVID ARDS comprises lung injuries from very heterogeneous causes, it is not easy to make a proper comparison between the two groups. Furthermore, although COVID-19 ARDS occurs by infection caused by a common single pathogen, results of several studies indicated that respiratory mechanics of patients with COVID-19 ARDS show a substantial interindividual variability, highlighting the importance of individualization in ventilator management [38]. As in our study, it may be because of this interindividual variability that other studies also failed to identify significant differences between COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID ARDS [39, 40].

We have recently reported that the extent of improvement in oxygenation after the first session of prone positioning could be predictive of clinical outcome for patients with non-COVID ARDS [9]. In this study, we confirmed this finding in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. In addition, we found that the improvement in static Crs after prone positioning was also associated with clinical outcome. Our findings suggest that if the physiological effect of prone positioning is not substantial at the end of the first session, intensivists may have to consider other therapeutic options. By comparison, a post hoc analysis of the PROSEVA trial found no association between the improvement in oxygenation after 1 h of prone positioning and survival outcomes [16]. This discrepancy may have arisen from the difference in the timing of evaluating the response to prone positioning. Given that it is not clear which timepoint after initiating prone positioning is most appropriate for response evaluation, more studies are needed to clarify this issue.

Our study has several limitations. First, our study was conducted at a single center and the number of patients studied was limited, although we enrolled every consecutive patient treated using prone positioning until December 2020. To compensate for this limitation, we performed additional literature review for other related studies. All studies retrieved consistently showed that prone positioning is effective in improving oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Second, despite our efforts to adjust for between-group differences including 1:1 matched analysis, we cannot exclude the possibility that uncontrolled individual factors affected our study findings. Third, we could not evaluate the effect of prone positioning in patients with preserved static Crs (type L phenotype), because there were no such patients in our cohort.

Conclusions

In conclusion, in patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving oxygenation and static Crs as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Although interindividual variability in respiratory mechanics indicates the need for more individualized approaches in ventilator management, our study findings suggest that prone positioning should be actively considered for patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS. In addition, the physiological response to the first session of prone positioning should be monitored to predict the future clinical outcome.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ARDS:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

CCI:

Charlson comorbidity index

CI:

Confidence interval

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

FiO2 :

Fraction of inspired oxygen

IQR:

Interquartile range

PaO2 :

Partial pressure of arterial oxygen

PEEP:

Positive end-expiratory pressure

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristics

Crs:

Respiratory system compliance

SOFA:

Sequential organ failure assessment

SHR:

Subdistribution hazard ratio

References

  1. 1.

    Guan W-j, Ni Z-y, Hu Y, Liang W-h, Ou C-q, He J-x, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hu Y, Sun J, Dai Z, Deng H, Li X, Huang Q, et al. Prevalence and severity of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Virol. 2020;127:104371.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tan E, Song J, Deane AM, Plummer MP. Global impact of coronavirus disease 2019 infection requiring admission to the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2021;159(2):524–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wiersinga WJ, Rhodes A, Cheng AC, Peacock SJ, Prescott HC. Pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a review. JAMA. 2020;324(8):782–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gattinoni L, Coppola S, Cressoni M, Busana M, Rossi S, Chiumello D. COVID-19 does not lead to a “Typical” acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(10):1299–300.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ferrando C, Suarez-Sipmann F, Mellado-Artigas R, Hernandez M, Gea A, Arruti E, et al. Clinical features, ventilatory management, and outcome of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are similar to other causes of ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(12):2200–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2159–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Guerin C, Albert RK, Beitler J, Gattinoni L, Jaber S, Marini JJ, et al. Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(12):2385–96.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Lee HY, Cho J, Kwak N, Choi SM, Lee J, Park YS, et al. Improved oxygenation after prone positioning may be a predictor of survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(12):1729–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Botta M, Tsonas AM, Pillay J, Boers LS, Algera AG, Bos LDJ, et al. Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(2):139–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Grasselli G, Tonetti T, Protti A, Langer T, Girardis M, Bellani G, et al. Pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(12):1201–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19—final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(19):1813–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Group RC, Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL, et al. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):693–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Roca O, Caralt B, Messika J, Samper M, Sztrymf B, Hernandez G, et al. An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high-flow therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(11):1368–76.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1107–16.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Albert RK, Keniston A, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Guerin C, Proseva I. Prone position-induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(4):494–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Rosenbaum PR. Optimal matching for observational studies. J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84(408):1024–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pearce N. Analysis of matched case-control studies. BMJ. 2016;352:969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sinha P, Calfee CS, Beitler JR, Soni N, Ho K, Matthay MA, et al. Physiologic analysis and clinical performance of the ventilatory ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(3):333–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yehya N, Harhay MO, Curley MAQ, Schoenfeld DA, Reeder RW. Reappraisal of ventilator-free days in critical care research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(7):828–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(6):1099–102.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Rossi S. COVID-19 pneumonia: ARDS or not? Crit Care. 2020;24(1):154.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Schenck EJ, Hoffman K, Goyal P, Choi J, Torres L, Rajwani K, et al. Respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(9):1158–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Vandenbunder B, Ehrmann S, Piagnerelli M, Sauneuf B, Serck N, Soumagne T, et al. Static compliance of the respiratory system in COVID-19 related ARDS: an international multicenter study. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cummings MJ, Baldwin MR, Abrams D, Jacobson SD, Meyer BJ, Balough EM, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10239):1763–70.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Network C-IGobotR, the C-ICUI. Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(1):60–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Panwar R, Madotto F, Laffey JG, van Haren FMP. Compliance phenotypes in early acute respiratory distress syndrome before the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(9):1244–52.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Weiss TT, Cerda F, Scott JB, Kaur R, Sungurlu S, Mirza SH, et al. Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(1):48–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Coppo A, Bellani G, Winterton D, Di Pierro M, Soria A, Faverio P, et al. Feasibility and physiological effects of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (PRON-COVID): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(8):765–74.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Albert RK, Keniston A, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Guérin C. Prone position–induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(4):494–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Haddam M, Zieleskiewicz L, Perbet S, Baldovini A, Guervilly C, Arbelot C, et al. Lung ultrasonography for assessment of oxygenation response to prone position ventilation in ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1546–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cornejo RA, Diaz JC, Tobar EA, Bruhn AR, Ramos CA, Gonzalez RA, et al. Effects of prone positioning on lung protection in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(4):440–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Haudebourg AF, Perier F, Tuffet S, de Prost N, Razazi K, Mekontso Dessap A, et al. Respiratory mechanics of COVID-19- versus non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(2):287–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Chen L, Del Sorbo L, Grieco DL, Junhasavasdikul D, Rittayamai N, Soliman I, et al. Potential for lung recruitment estimated by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(2):178–87.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Pan C, Chen L, Lu C, Zhang W, Xia JA, Sklar MC, et al. Lung recruitability in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(10):1294–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Mauri T, Spinelli E, Scotti E, Colussi G, Basile MC, Crotti S, et al. Potential for lung recruitment and ventilation-perfusion mismatch in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome from coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(8):1129–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fan E, Beitler JR, Brochard L, Calfee CS, Ferguson ND, Slutsky AS, et al. COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: is a different approach to management warranted? Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(8):816–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bain W, Yang H, Shah FA, Suber T, Drohan C, Al-Yousif N, et al. COVID-19 versus non-COVID ARDS: comparison of demographics, physiologic parameters, inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(7):1202–10.

  40. 40.

    Grieco DL, Bongiovanni F, Chen L, Menga LS, Cutuli SL, Pintaudi G, et al. Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):529.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Abou-Arab O, Haye G, Beyls C, Huette P, Roger PA, Guilbart M, et al. Hypoxemia and prone position in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: a prospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2021;68(2):262–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Astua AJ, Michaels EK, Michaels AJ. Prone during pandemic: development and implementation of a quality-based protocol for proning severe COVID-19 hypoxic lung failure patients in situationally or historically low resource hospitals. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1):25.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Berrill M. Evaluation of oxygenation in 129 proning sessions in 34 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36(2):229–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Clarke J, Geoghegan P, McEvoy N, Boylan M, Orna NC, Mulligan M, et al. Prone positioning improves oxygenation and lung recruitment in patients with SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory distress syndrome; a single centre cohort study of 20 consecutive patients. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Douglas IS, Rosenthal CA, Swanson DD, Hiller T, Oakes J, Bach J, et al. Safety and outcomes of prolonged usual care prone position mechanical ventilation to treat acute coronavirus disease 2019 hypoxemic respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(3):490–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gleissman H, Forsgren A, Andersson E, Lindqvist E, Lipka Falck A, Cronhjort M, et al. Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021;65(3):360–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Khullar R, Shah S, Singh G, Bae J, Gattu R, Jain S, et al. Effects of prone ventilation on oxygenation, inflammation, and lung infiltrates in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):4129.

  48. 48.

    Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, et al. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):128.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Mittermaier M, Pickerodt P, Kurth F, de Jarcy LB, Uhrig A, Garcia C, et al. Evaluation of PEEP and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;28:100579.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Perier F, Tuffet S, Maraffi T, Alcala G, Victor M, Haudebourg AF, et al. Effect of positive end-expiratory pressure and proning on ventilation and perfusion in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(12):1713–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Sang L, Zheng X, Zhao Z, Zhong M, Jiang L, Huang Y, et al. Lung recruitment, individualized PEEP, and prone position ventilation for COVID-19-associated severe ARDS: a single center observational study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:603943.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Scaramuzzo G, Gamberini L, Tonetti T, Zani G, Ottaviani I, Mazzoli CA, et al. Sustained oxygenation improvement after first prone positioning is associated with liberation from mechanical ventilation and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Shelhamer MC, Wesson PD, Solari IL, Jensen DL, Steele WA, Dimitrov VG, et al. Prone positioning in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19: a cohort study and analysis of physiology. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36(2):241–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Vollenberg R, Matern P, Nowacki T, Fuhrmann V, Padberg JS, Ochs K, et al. Prone position in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: a multicenter study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(5):1046.

  55. 55.

    Ziehr DR, Alladina J, Wolf ME, Brait KL, Malhotra A, La Vita C, et al. Respiratory physiology of prone positioning with and without inhaled nitric oxide across the coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome severity spectrum. Crit Care Explor. 2021;3(6):0471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SML is the study lead and guarantor for this paper. JP, HYL, JL, and SML contributed to conception and design of the study. JP and HYL contributed to acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. JP and HYL performed the main statistical analysis, and JL and SML critically appraised those results. JP wrote the first draft of this paper, and HYL, JL, and SML revised it critically for important intellectual content. JP, HYL, JL, and SML had access to final version of this paper and approved it to be published. JP, HYL, JL, and SML reached agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang-Min Lee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was waived because this study was considered as posing minimal risk to the study participants because of its retrospective study design.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance after prone positioning; Table S2. Relative percentage change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance; Table S3. Subgroup analysis according to underlying cause of non-COVID ARDS.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, J., Lee, H.Y., Lee, J. et al. Effect of prone positioning on oxygenation and static respiratory system compliance in COVID-19 ARDS vs. non-COVID ARDS. Respir Res 22, 220 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-021-01819-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • Acute respiratory distress syndrome
  • Prone position
  • Oxygenation
  • Respiratory system compliance