Application effect analysis of lateral prone position ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20230630-00480
- Author:
Chen LI
1
;
Peng ZHANG
2
;
Min ZHENG
1
;
Donglai SHENG
1
;
Ting WANG
1
;
Xiaogan JIANG
2
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Jingxian Hospital, Xuancheng 242500, Anhui, China.
2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Yijishan Hospital, Wannan Medical College, Anhui Clinical Medical Research Center for Critical Respiratory Diseases, Wuhu 241000, Anhui, China. Corresponding author: Jiang Xiaogan, Email: yjsicu@126.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Respiration, Artificial;
Prone Position;
Prospective Studies;
Lung;
Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy*;
Respiration;
Vomiting
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2023;35(9):939-944
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of lateral prone position ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
METHODS:A prospective control study was conducted. A total of 75 patients with moderate to severe ARDS admitted to the department of critical care medicine of Jingxian Hospital in Anhui province from January 2020 to December 2022 were selected as the research objects. According to the envelope method, the patients were divided into the lateral prone position ventilation group (38 cases) and the traditional prone position ventilation (PPV) group (37 cases), using lateral prone position ventilation and traditional PPV, respectively. The mechanical ventilation parameters were set according to the ARDS treatment guidelines and lung protective ventilation requirements in both groups, and the time of prone position for the first 3 times was not less than 16 hours per day. General data of patients were recorded, including heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), airway resistance and lung static compliance (Cst) before prone position (T0), 1 hour (T1), 4 hours (T2), 8 hours (T3), and before the end of prone position (T4), oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) before the first prone position (t0) and 12 hours (t1), 24 hours (t2), 48 hours (t3), and 72 hours (t4) after the intensive care unit (ICU) admission, as well as the incidence of pressure injury (PI) and vomiting, tracheal intubation time, and mechanical ventilation time. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effects of different prone positions on patients before and after the prone position.
RESULTS:There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), underlying diseases, HR, MAP, pH value, PaO2/FiO2, blood lactic acid (Lac), arterial blood pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and other general information between the two groups. The HR (intergroup effect: F = 0.845, P = 0.361; time effect: F = 1.373, P = 0.247; interaction: F = 0.245, P = 0.894), MAP (intergroup effect: F = 1.519, P = 0.222; time effect: F = 0.169, P = 0.954; interaction: F = 0.449, P = 0.773) and airway resistance (intergroup effect: F = 0.252, P = 0.617; time effect: F = 0.578, P = 0.679; interaction: F = 1.467, P = 0.212) of T0-T4 between two groups showed no significant difference. The Cst of T0-T4 between the two groups showed no significant difference in the intergroup effect (F = 0.311, P = 0.579) and the interaction (F = 0.364, P = 0.834), while the difference in the time effect was statistically significant (F = 120.546, P < 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 of t0-t4 between the two groups showed no significant difference in the intergroup effect (F = 0.104, P = 0.748) and the interaction (F = 0.147, P = 0.964), while the difference in the time effect was statistically significant (F = 17.638, P < 0.001). The group factors and time factors were tested separately, and there were no significant differences in the HR, MAP, airway resistance, Cst, PaO2/FiO2 between the two groups at different time points (all P > 0.05). The Cst at T1-T4 and PaO2/FiO2 at t1-t4 in the two groups were significantly higher than those at T0/t0 (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the tracheal intubation time [days: 6.75 (5.78, 8.33) vs. 7.00 (6.30, 8.45)] and mechanical ventilation time [days: 8.30 (6.70, 9.20) vs. 7.40 (6.80, 8.75)] between the lateral prone position ventilation group and the traditional PPV group (both P > 0.05). However, the incidences of PI [7.9% (3/38) vs. 27.0% (10/37)] and vomiting [10.5% (4/38) vs. 29.7% (11/37)] in the lateral prone position ventilation group were significantly lower than those in the traditional PPV group (both P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:Both lateral prone position ventilation and traditional PPV can improve Cst and oxygenation in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The two types of prone position have little influence on HR, MAP and airway resistance of patients, and there is no difference in the influence on tracheal intubation time and mechanical ventilation time of patients. However, the lateral prone position ventilation mode can reduce the incidence of PI and vomiting, and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.
