Pro/con clinical debate: the use of prone positioning in the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Crit Care. 2002 Feb;6(1):15-7. doi: 10.1186/cc1447. Epub 2002 Jan 17.

Abstract

Critical care medicine is a relatively new specialty and as such there is not a great deal of accumulated data to allow clinicians to practice 'evidence-based medicine' in all situations they encounter. When evidence does exist, intensivists may choose not to follow it based on 'gut feelings' or their own interpretation of how the data apply to their patient. It is perhaps not surprising that these latter events occur given that intensivists are often literally fighting for their patient's lives. Prone positioning evokes a large emotional response from many intensivists. Despite accumulating data there appears to be two camps of clinicians: those who strongly believe in the therapy, and those who want more data. The emotion and rationale for the mindset of the two camps is evident in this issue of Critical Care Forum. With compelling arguments on both sides of the fence, it is apparent that this debate is far from over. The authors of this pro/con debate, which is based on a clinical scenario, first describe their position and then respond to their opponent's position.

Publication types

  • Case Reports
  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Accidents, Traffic
  • Adult
  • Clinical Trials as Topic
  • Confidence Intervals
  • Hemodynamics
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic
  • Oxygen / blood
  • Prone Position*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Respiration
  • Respiration, Artificial
  • Respiratory Distress Syndrome / etiology
  • Respiratory Distress Syndrome / mortality
  • Respiratory Distress Syndrome / physiopathology
  • Respiratory Distress Syndrome / therapy*
  • Risk Factors
  • Supine Position
  • Time Factors

Substances

  • Oxygen