Effects of extended prone positioning ventilation on ARDS patients with VV - ECMO support
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2025.03.016
- VernacularTitle:延长俯卧位通气时间对静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合支持的急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的影响
- Author:
Hongjie TONG
1
;
Xiaoling ZHANG
;
Yunpeng ZHAO
;
Feiyan PAN
;
Shengwei JIA
;
Qianqian WANG
Author Information
1. 金华市中心医院重症医学科，金华 321000
- Keywords:
Prone positioning ventilation;
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation;
Acute respiratory distress syndrome;
Degree of lung expansion
- From:
Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine
2025;34(3):389-395
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objectives:To evaluate the effect of extended single prone positioning ventilation on survival and weaning rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients supported by VV-ECMO.Methods:ARDS patients supported by VV-ECMO admitted to Jinhua Central Hospital, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine and the First Hospital of Jiaxing from September 2014 to May 2025 were retrospectively enrolled into the study. The clinical data, ECMO and ventilator related parameters and outcomes of the patients were collected. The patients were divided into the extended prone positioning group and prone positioning group according to whether the duration of prone position ventilation was greater than 24 h. The clinical data of the two groups were compared to explore the effects on 30-day survival in-hospital survival and ECMO withdraw rate of these patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between the duration of single prone position ventilation and the success of ECMO weaning, 30-day survival and hospital survival.Results:Total of 163 ARDS patients supported by VV-ECMO receiving prone positioning ventilation were included in study, 64 in extended prone positioning group and 72 in prone positioning group. The 30-day survival (54.7% vs. 52.8%) in-hospital survival (51.6% vs. 48.6%) and ECMO withdraw rate (57.8% vs. 61.1%) between the two groups were not statistically different ( P>0.05) as well as the duration of ECMO support [12(10,15)d vs. 11(10,13)d] the duration of ventilation [16(13,18)d vs. 16(12,18)d] the duration of ICU stay [26(15,32)d vs. 26(19,29)d] and the duration of hospital stay [32(15,42)d vs. 34(28,35)d]. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the duration of each prone position ventilation was not associated with successful weaning ( OR=0.979, 95% CI:0.952-1.006), 30-day survival ( OR=1.015, 95% CI: 0.975-1.056) and hospital survival ( OR=1.014, 95% CI: 0.974-1.055) even after adjusting for the severity of illness, age, and type of pneumonia. Conclusions:For ARDS patients supported by VV-ECMO, extended single prone positioning ventilation for more than 24 hours neither increase 30-day survival in-hospital survival and successful ECMO weaning rate, nor shorten ECMO support duration.
