Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Jun 14;25(1):209.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03602-9.

Awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the PROFLO multicenter randomized clinical trial

Jacob Rosén #  1 , Erik von Oelreich #  2   3 , Diddi Fors  4 , Malin Jonsson Fagerlund  2   3 , Knut Taxbro  5 , Paul Skorup  6 , Ludvig Eby  7 , Francesca Campoccia Jalde  2   8 , Niclas Johansson  9   10 , Gustav Bergström  6 , Peter Frykholm  4 ; PROFLO Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the PROFLO multicenter randomized clinical trial

Jacob Rosén et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: The effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rates is not established. The aim of this trial was to investigate if a protocol for awake prone positioning reduces the rate of endotracheal intubation compared with standard care among patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation for respiratory support and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa were randomly assigned to a protocol targeting 16 h prone positioning per day or standard care. The primary endpoint was intubation within 30 days. Secondary endpoints included duration of awake prone positioning, 30-day mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, use of noninvasive ventilation, organ support and adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to futility.

Results: Of 141 patients assessed for eligibility, 75 were randomized of whom 39 were allocated to the control group and 36 to the prone group. Within 30 days after enrollment, 13 patients (33%) were intubated in the control group versus 12 patients (33%) in the prone group (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.46-2.21), P = 0.99). Median prone duration was 3.4 h [IQR 1.8-8.4] in the control group compared with 9.0 h per day [IQR 4.4-10.6] in the prone group (P = 0.014). Nine patients (23%) in the control group had pressure sores compared with two patients (6%) in the prone group (difference - 18% (95% CI - 2 to - 33%); P = 0.032). There were no other differences in secondary outcomes between groups.

Conclusions: The implemented protocol for awake prone positioning increased duration of prone positioning, but did not reduce the rate of intubation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared to standard care.

Trial registration: ISRCTN54917435. Registered 15 June 2020 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN54917435 ).

Keywords: Awake prone positioning; COVID-19; Critical care; High-flow nasal oxygen; Intensive care; Intubation rates; Mechanical ventilation; Noninvasive ventilation; Respiratory failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MJF has received travel support and lecture fees from Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand, however, not related to this study. DF has received travel support from Armstrong Medical, Coleraine, Great Britain, to participate in a scientific seminar, however, not related to this study. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) flow diagram of randomized and analyzed participants
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Within 30 days, 13 patients (33%) were intubated in the control group compared with 12 patients (33%) in the prone group, HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.46–2.21), P = 0.99
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard J-C, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–68. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Munshi L, Del Sorbo L, Adhikari NKJ, Hodgson CL, Wunsch H, Meade MO, et al. Prone position for acute respiratory distress syndrome. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14:S280–8. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-343OT. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caputo ND, Strayer RJ, Levitan R. Early self-proning in awake, non-intubated patients in the emergency department: a single ED’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27:375–378. doi: 10.1111/acem.13994. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Slessarev M, Cheng J, Ondrejicka M, Arntfield R. Patient self-proning with high-flow nasal cannula improves oxygenation in COVID-19 pneumonia. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67:1288–1290. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01661-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun Q, Qiu H, Huang M, Yang Y. Lower mortality of COVID-19 by early recognition and intervention: experience from Jiangsu Province. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:33. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00650-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding