Early conscious prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 receiving continuous positive airway pressure: a retrospective analysis

The global pandemic of COVID-19 has challenged the management of hypoxaemic respiratory failure and strained intensive care unit resources. While prone positioning (PP) is an established therapy in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), its role in conscious patients is less well defined. We retrospectively reviewed our experience of implementing early PP in a cohort of 24 patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who required support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). The use of PP alongside CPAP significantly increased both the ROX index and arterial oxygen pressure:fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) ratio from baseline values (ROX index: 7.0±2.5 baseline vs 11.4±3.7 CPAP+PP, p<0.0001; PaO2:FiO2 ratio: 143±73 mm Hg baseline vs 252±87 mm Hg CPAP+PP, p<0.01), and the changes to both the ROX index and PaO2:FiO2 ratio remained significant 1 hour after cessation of proning. The mean duration of PP in the first 24 hours was 8±5 hours. Few complications were observed and PP was continued for a mean of 10±5 days. From our experience in a dedicated COVID-19 respiratory high care unit, PP alongside CPAP therapy was feasible, tolerated, safe and improved oxygenation. The use of conscious PP in ARDS warrants further investigation in randomised controlled trials.

Download Full-text

Is a definitive trial of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure versus standard oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure indicated? The ACUTE pilot randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035915 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (7) ◽

pp. e035915

Author(s):

Gordon Fuller ◽

Sam Keating ◽

Steve Goodacre ◽

Esther Herbert ◽

Gavin Perkins ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Respiratory Failure ◽

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Acute Respiratory Failure ◽

Airway Pressure ◽

Oxygen Therapy ◽

Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Pilot Trial ◽

Recruitment Rate ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo determine the feasibility of a large-scale definitive multicentre trial of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in acute respiratory failure.DesignA single-centre, open-label, individual patient randomised, controlled, external pilot trial.SettingA single UK Ambulance Service, between August 2017 and July 2018.ParticipantsAdults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below British Thoracic Society target levels despite controlled oxygen treatment.InterventionsPatients were randomised to prehospital CPAP (O-Two system) versus standard oxygen therapy in a 1:1 ratio using simple randomisation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFeasibility outcomes comprised recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment, retention and data completeness. The primary clinical outcome was 30-day mortality.Results77 patients were enrolled (target 120), including 7 cases with a diagnosis where CPAP could be ineffective or harmful. CPAP was fully delivered in 74% (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations. Full data were available for all key outcomes (targets ≥90%). Overall 30-day mortality was 27.3%. Of these deceased patients, 14/21 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling of treatment decisions implemented excluding hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care.ConclusionsRecruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. Limited compliance with CPAP, and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from CPAP, indicate that prehospital CPAP is unlikely to materially reduce mortality. A definitive effectiveness trial of CPAP is therefore not recommended.Trial registration numberISRCTN12048261; Post-results.

Download Full-text

PP25 ‘I wish there was CPAP in every box’: internet-based survey responses of clinicians recruiting to a pilot randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for patients with acute respiratory failure

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2019-999abs.25 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 36 (10) ◽

pp. e11.2-e11

Author(s):

Joshua Miller ◽

Samuel Keating ◽

Gordon Fuller ◽

Steve Goodacre

Keyword(s):

Respiratory Failure ◽

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Airway Pressure ◽

Standard Care ◽

Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Hospital Staff ◽

Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is not in widespread use in UK ambulance services, but could benefit patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). As a new treatment in this context, clinician acceptability is an important factor in the feasibility of conducting definitive research in the prehospital arena.MethodsAs part of a pilot randomised controlled trial (the ACUTE study), recruiting clinicians were emailed after enrolling patients to either the CPAP or standard-care arm, and were asked to complete an optional, anonymous, internet-based survey. The survey used a mixture of closed questions, Likert-scaled answers and free text to explore staff views on both the treatment and the trial procedures. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively, and qualitative answers thematically.ResultsRecruiting clinicians for all 77 patients were sent survey links, with 40 email responses received. Respondents felt confident diagnosing ARF and determining trial eligibility. CPAP-arm respondents found the equipment easy-to-use and felt it did not delay transport to hospital. Most standard-care respondents said they would have liked CPAP to be available to their patients. Respondents described varying responses from receiving hospital staff.ConclusionsPrehospital CPAP seems acceptable to clinicians. Limitations of this survey are that it was targeted only at clinicians who have already opted to take part in the trial, and so may exclude a body of staff who find the treatment unacceptable at face value. Not all clinicians who enrolled patients completed the survey, which could suggest a response bias or simply a reflection of its optional nature within the trial. Future pilot studies could mandate an acceptability survey, and also seek the views of staff not taking part in the interventional study. Trial teams may need to better explain the rationale of comparing a new intervention with standard care, and offer more widespread hospital staff awareness sessions.

Download Full-text