
==== Front
Ann Intensive Care
Ann Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care
2110-5820
Springer International Publishing Cham

39292429
1375
10.1186/s13613-024-01375-2
Research
Respiratory effects of prone position in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome differ according to the recruitment-to-inflation ratio: a prospective observational study
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5088-3364
Lai Christopher christopher.lai@aphp.fr

12
Shi Rui 12
Jelinski Ludwig 1
Lardet Florian 1
Fasan Marta 13
Ayed Soufia 1
Belotti Hugo 1
Biard Nicolas 1
Guérin Laurent 1
Fage Nicolas 1
Fossé Quentin 1
Gobé Thibaut 1
Pavot Arthur 1
Roger Guillaume 1
Yhuel Alex 1
Teboul Jean-Louis 12
Pham Tai 14
Monnet Xavier 12
for the EVALPRO Study group
1 https://ror.org/03xjwb503 grid.460789.4 0000 0004 4910 6535 AP-HP, Service de médecine intensive-réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Saclay, DMU CORREVE, FHU SEPSIS, Groupe de recherche clinique CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, 78 rue du Général Leclerc, 94270 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
2 grid.414221.0 Inserm UMR S_999, Pulmonary Hypertension: Pathophysiology and Novel Therapies, University Paris-Saclay, Hôpital Marie Lannelongue, Le Plessis-Robinson, France
3 https://ror.org/039bp8j42 grid.5611.3 0000 0004 1763 1124 Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Gynaecology and Paediatrics, University of Verona, Verona, Veneto Italy
4 grid.460789.4 0000 0004 4910 6535 Inserm U1018, Equipe d’Epidémiologie Respiratoire Intégrative, CESP,, Université Paris-Saclay (UVSQ)-Université Paris-Sud, Villejuif, 94807 France
18 9 2024
18 9 2024
2024
14 1467 3 2024
1 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Improvements in oxygenation and lung mechanics with prone position (PP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are inconstant. The objectives of the study were (i) to identify baseline variables, including the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I), associated with a positive response to PP in terms of oxygenation (improvement of the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure over the inspired oxygen fraction (PaO2/FiO2) ≥ 20 mmHg) and lung mechanics; (ii) to evaluate whether the response to the previous PP session is associated with the response to the next session.

Methods

In this prospective, observational, single-center study in patients who underwent PP for ARDS due to COVID-19, respiratory variables were assessed just before PP and at the end of the session. Respiratory variables included mechanical ventilation settings and respiratory mechanics variables, including R/I, an estimate of the potential for lung recruitment compared to lung overinflation.

Results

In 50 patients, 201 PP sessions lasting 19 ± 3 h were evaluated. Neuromuscular blockades were used in 116 (58%) sessions. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased from 109 ± 31 mmHg to 165 ± 65 mmHg, with an increase ≥ 20 mmHg in 142 (71%) sessions. In a mixed effect logistic regression, only pre-PP PaO2/FiO2 (OR 1.12 (95% CI [1.01–1.24])/every decrease of 10 mmHg, p = 0.034) in a first model and improvement in oxygenation at the previous PP session (OR 3.69 (95% CI [1.27–10.72]), p = 0.017) in a second model were associated with an improvement in oxygenation with PP. The R/I ratio (n = 156 sessions) was 0.53 (0.30–0.76), separating lower- and higher-recruiters. Whereas PaO2/FiO2 improved to the same level in both subgroups, driving pressure and respiratory system compliance improved only in higher-recruiters (from 14 ± 4 to 12 ± 4 cmH2O, p = 0.027, and from 34 ± 11 to 38 ± 13 mL/cmH2O, respectively, p = 0.014).

Conclusions

A lower PaO2/FiO2 at baseline and a positive O2-response at the previous PP session are associated with a PP-induced improvement in oxygenation. In higher-recruiters, lung mechanics improved along with oxygenation. Benefits of PP could thus be greater in these patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-024-01375-2.

Keywords

Airway opening pressure
Heart-lung interactions
Driving pressure
Lung recruitment
issue-copyright-statement© La Société de Réanimation de Langue Francaise = The French Society of Intensive Care (SRLF) 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

In patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prone positioning (PP) is associated with reduced mortality [1, 2] and is thus recommended when the ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the inspired fraction of oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) is ≤ 150 mmHg [3, 4]. Improvement in survival of such patients is secondary to respiratory effects including homogenization in lung stress and strain, reduced lung overinflation, increased lung recruitment and thus improved ventilation/perfusion matching [5–7]. In addition to these respiratory mechanisms, PP also has some beneficial hemodynamic effects that may play a significant role [5, 8].

Although PP is generally associated with improved oxygenation, this effect is difficult to predict due to the complexity of the determinants of oxygenation and of the effects of PP on both lung and circulation [9–12]. Several studies have investigated whether factors could be identified to predict a positive response to PP. The predictive ability of the response in oxygenation of the previous PP session has not been investigated.

The beneficial effects of PP are likely more related to lung protective effects than effects on oxygenation. However, these effects are again difficult to predict. This may be possible with the recruitment-to-inflation (R/I) ratio. This index does not estimate lung recruitment, but has been proposed for an easy assessment at the bedside of the potential for lung recruitment in patients with ARDS [13]. It might help in setting the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) [14–16] or in deciding to apply lung recruitment maneuvers [17]. Whether it could predict the response of lung mechanics induced by PP has been investigated in a small study in COVID-19 patients with ARDS [18], which may require some confirmation.

The objectives of this prospective observational study in ARDS patients were (i) to identify baseline variables, including the R/I ratio, that are associated with a positive response to PP in terms of oxygenation and lung mechanics and (ii) to evaluate whether the response to the previous PP session is associated with the response to the next session.

Methods

Study population

This prospective observational cohort study was performed in a 25-bed medical intensive care unit. It was approved by the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society (CE SRLF 21–01) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04635267). All patients or close relatives were informed that their data were included in the cohort. It was conducted according to the STROBE guidelines (Additional file 1: Appendix 1).

Patients were eligible if they met the criteria for ARDS [19], were aged ≥ 18 years, were under invasive mechanical ventilation, were monitored with a transpulmonary thermodilution device, according to current guidelines [20], and if attending physicians decided to perform PP, according to current guidelines [4]. The exclusion criteria were the presence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and pregnancy. The non-inclusion criteria were the unavailability of the investigators and the necessity of performing PP in an emergency. Several PP sessions per patient could be included.

Study design and data collection

PEEP was set according to the “Express” protocol [21]. The plateau pressure was measured during a 3-sec end-inspiratory hold of the ventilator. For all measurements, the absence of respiratory effort or asynchrony was carefully checked. Pressure, volume, and flow curves were not continuously recorded. Blood gas samples were collected before the assessment of respiratory parameters. Measurements were performed during volume control with Carescape R860 (General Electrics, Fairfield, CO) or Infinity C500 (Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany) ventilators in either the supine semi-recumbent position or in the prone position (bed in the proclive position at 10–12°).

The compliance of the respiratory system (Crs) was calculated as the tidal volume divided by the driving pressure (DP, plateau pressure – total PEEP) [22]. The airway opening pressure (AOP) and R/I were obtained as previously described [13, 23]. AOP was measured using cursors on the ventilator screen by inspecting the pressure–time curve during a low-flow insufflation (6 L/min) starting from a PEEP level of 0. The PEEP level was set at 15 cmH2O for at least 15 min. Then, the respiratory rate was decreased to 10 breaths/min to avoid possible intrinsic PEEP, and the expired tidal volume displayed by the ventilator was noted. PEEP was abruptly decreased by 10 cmH2O and the expired volume displayed by the ventilator immediately after the maneuver was collected. Finally, plateau pressure at low PEEP was assessed. The recruited lung volume divided by the effective pressure change (depending on the presence of AOP) allows the calculation of the compliance of the recruited lung. The R/I ratio is the ratio between the compliance of the recruited lung and that of the respiratory system at low PEEP [13]. R/I ratios were computed using an online calculator (www.rtmaven.com).

PP sessions were performed as previously described and recommended [3]. During PP, the arms were parallel to the trunk, the abdomen was unsupported, and the face turned to the right or the left side. The bed was placed in the proclive position at 10–12°. Ventilatory settings and respiratory and hemodynamic variables were collected prospectively in the hour before PP, at the end of the PP session just before the patient was returned to the supine position and, when feasible, 6–8 h after the end of the PP session. A detailed study design is provided in the Supplemental material.

Statistical analysis

Variables are reported as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range), and n (%). Proportions were compared using chi-square and Fisher exact tests, and continuous variables were compared using Student’s t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests or paired tests, as appropriate. The correlation coefficients were compared with a z-test on Fisher z-transformed correlation coefficients. Changes in variables over time were assessed by a repeated measures ANOVA model. For pairwise comparisons between different time points (before PP, end of PP and post PP), a Bonferroni correction was applied. Most patients had several PP sessions, leading to a clustered structure of the data. To consider this repeated data collection, we used a mixed effect logistic regression to determine factors associated with the outcomes of interest: level 1 comprised session-related variables, and level 2 comprised patient-related covariates [24, 25].

To assess our two objectives, to identify baseline variables associated with a positive response to PP in terms of oxygenation and lung mechanics and to evaluate whether the response to the previous PP session is associated with the response to the next session, and to identify baseline variables associated with a positive O2-response to PP, the O2-response was defined as an increase in PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 20 mmHg during PP (using the arterial blood gas drawn at the end of the PP session, just before turning the patient back to the supine position) [10, 12, 26]. We selected variables a priori based on their clinical relevance or their expected association with the outcomes of interest. In a first model, the following factors were entered: a decrease in PaO2/FiO2 by 10 mmHg, driving pressure and SAPS II. In a second model, we added the R/I ratio. In a third model, we introduced the O2-response from the previous PP session when available. If variables were associated with an O2-response with a p value < 0.10 in the univariate regression analysis, they were included in the model. The results are shown as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

To analyze the response to PP in terms of oxygenation and the respiratory mechanics depending on the R/I ratio before the PP session, this continuous variable was transformed into a binary variable (higher or lower) on either side of the median value measured in the supine position. A regression model to explain improvement in oxygenation and respiratory mechanics was then performed, including R/I before the considered session and body mass index (BMI) as explanatory covariates. Pearson’s correlation was used to test the relationship between the R/I ratio and changes in respiratory variables in the supine position and in PP.

Assuming an incidence of 25% of O2-non-response with PP [10, 11], and considering that 10 events per variable would be necessary to perform the logistic regression analysis with 5 factors [27], we calculated that 200 PP sessions should be analyzed in the study. Considering that each patient would undergo 4 PP sessions [1], 50 patients were included.

A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. The statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc 19.2.1 software (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium) or R 4.21 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org).

Results

Study population

Between January and May 2021, among the 60 eligible patients, 50 were included. In these patients, 201 PP sessions were recorded prospectively (Supplementary Figure S1), with a median of 3 (2–6) sessions per patient and a maximum of 11 sessions in one patient. The first PP was recorded in 44/50 (88%) patients (Table 1). Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) were used during 116 (58%) sessions. Inhaled nitric oxide was used in 3 (6%) patients and during 4 (2%) of the analyzed sessions (Supplementary Table S1). Severe acute cor pulmonale was observed in 2 (4%) patients. Veno-venous ECMO was implanted secondarily in 5 (10%) patients for refractory hypoxemia and follow-up was stopped in these patients. The mortality rates on day-30 and day-90 were 40% and 52%, respectively.

Table 1 Patient characteristics

Gender, male/female	40/10	
Age, years	63 ± 9	
Height, cm	172 ± 9	
Weight, kg	88 ± 14	
Body mass index, kg/m2	29.7 ± 5.5	
Medical history

Hypertension

Diabetes mellitus

Immunosuppression

	21 (42)

12 (24)

4 (8)

	
SAPS II	35 ± 12	
Time from hospital to ICU admission, days	1 (0–3)	
Time from ICU admission to intubation, days	1 (0–2)	
Time from intubation to first prone position session, days (n = 44)	1 (0–3)	
Pulmonary embolism at admission, N	7 (14)	
Adjunctive therapies, N

Dexamethasone

Tocilizumab

Bevacizumab

	50 (100)

14 (28)

2 (4)

	
ICU length of stay, days	26 ± 18	
ICU mortality, N	24 (48)	
N = 50. The results are expressed as numbers, numbers (%) or mean ± SD

ICU intensive care unit, SAPS simplified acute physiology score

When considering all sessions, the severity of ARDS at the time of PP was moderate and severe in 114 (57%) and 87 (43%) sessions, respectively. The pre-PP PaO2/FiO2 was ≤ 150 mmHg in 181 (91%) sessions. One-hundred-sixty-one (80%) sessions were performed during the first two weeks following hospital admission, 33 (16%) during the third week and seven (3%) during the fourth week after hospital admission. The tidal volume was 6.1 ± 0.3 mL/kg of predicted body weight, and the respiratory rate was 29 ± 4/min. The other respiratory variables prior to PP are reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Respiratory variables at different study times

	Pre-PP	PP	Post-PP	ANOVA	
n		n		n		p	
PEEPt, cmH2O

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	201

142

59

75

81

	14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

15 ± 3

	201

142

59

75

81

	14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

15 ± 3

	137

99

38

49

52

	14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

14 ± 3

15 ± 3

	0.652

0.288

0.444

0.889

0.643

	
Pplat, cmH2O

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	201

142

59

75

81

	29 ± 4

29 ± 4

29 ± 4

29 ± 4

28 ± 3

	201

142

59

75

81

	28 ± 4

28 ± 4

28 ± 4$

28 ± 3

27 ± 4

	137

99

38

49

52

	29 ± 4

28 ± 3

30 ± 4

29 ± 4

28 ± 3

	0.560

0.567

0.003

0.949

0.965

	
Driving pressure, cmH2O

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	201

142

59

75

81

	15 ± 5

15 ± 5

16 ± 6

15 ± 5

14 ± 4

	201

142

59

75

81

	14 ± 5*

14 ± 5

15 ± 6

15 ± 5

12 ± 4*

	137

99

38

49

52

	15 ± 6

14 ± 6

16 ± 7

15 ± 5

13 ± 4

	0.018

0.129

0.053

0.596

0.008

	
Crs, mL/cmH2O

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	201

142

59

75

81

	30 ± 11

30 ± 10

31 ± 13

30 ± 10

34 ± 11

	201

142

59

75

81

	33 ± 13*$

33 ± 12

32 ± 15$

30 ± 10

38 ± 13*$

	137

99

38

49

52

	31 ± 9

32 ± 9

29 ± 8

30 ± 8

33 ± 9

	0.001

0.569

0.021

0.927

0.002

	
PaO2/FiO2, mmHg

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	201

142

59

75

81

	109 ± 31

106 ± 31

115 ± 30

115 ± 33

107 ± 29

	201

142

59

75

81

	163 ± 65*$

185 ± 61*$

110 ± 32

161 ± 61*$

168 ± 72*$

	137

99

38

51

51

	135 ± 54¤

143 ± 53¤

113 ± 51

129 ± 49

139 ± 62¤

	< 0.001

< 0.001

0.486

< 0.001

< 0.001

	
AOP, cmH2O

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	156

106

50

75

81

	0 (0–6)

1 (0–6)

0 (0–6)

0 (0–6)

1 (0–6)

	158

113

45

59

69

	2 (0–6)

2 (0–5)

2 (0–5)

2 (0–5)

2 (0–7)

	107

78

29

40

45

	3 (0–6)

3 (0–6)

4 (2–6)

3 (0–6)

3 (0–6)

	0.375

0.799

0.232

0.406

0.803

	
R/I

All

O2-responders

O2-nonresponders

Lower-recruiters

Higher-recruiters

	156

106

50

75

81

	0.53 (0.31–0.81)

0.53 (0.29–0.76)

0.53 (0.40–0.85)

0.30 (0.00–0.43)

0.76 (0.61–1.16)

	158

113

45

59

69

	0.51 (0.30–0.76)

0.48 (0.30–0.70)

0.61 (0.36–0.83)

0.45 (0.27–0.71)*

0.57 (0.40–0.86)*

	107

78

29

40

45

	0.54 (0.27–0.85)

0.54 (0.27–0.88)

0.53 (0.26–0.79)

0.45 (0.04–0.88)¤

0.62 (0.46–0.84)

	0.344

0.241

0.247

0.006

0.019

	
ANOVA analysis of variance; AOP airway opening pressure; Crs respiratory system compliance; FiO2 inspired fraction in oxygen; PEEPt total positive end-expiratory pressure; PaO2 arterial partial pressure in oxygen; PP prone position; Pplat plateau pressure; R/I recruitment-to-inflation ratio

“Pre-PP”: ≤1 h before the PP; “PP”: at the end of the PP session; “Post-PP”: 6 to 8 h after returning to the supine position

* p < 0.05 pre-PP vs. PP, $p < 0.05 PP vs. Post-PP, ¤p < 0.05 pre-PP vs. post-PP

Baseline variables associated with an improvement in oxygenation during PP

Considering all sessions, 142 (71%) were O2-responsive, i.e., were accompanied by an increase in PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 20 mmHg at the end of the PP session compared to before the PP session. Among the 31 patients with ≥ 3 PP sessions, the five who were O2−responders to all sessions survived on day-90, and the two who were O2-non-responders to all sessions died before day-90 (Supplementary Figure S2).

Univariate analysis showed that PaO2 before PP was higher in O2-responders than in O2-non-responders (Supplementary Table S1). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio before PP was not different between groups (106 ± 31 mmHg vs. 115 ± 30 mmHg, respectively, p = 0.081). No other pre-PP respiratory or hemodynamic variables differed between O2-responders and O2-non-responders (Supplementary Table S1). When considering only the first PP session (n = 44), no variable was associated with an improvement in oxygenation during PP. DP, Crs, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and the R/I ratio were similar pre-PP. Results were similar in patients with and without NMBA (data not shown).

The mixed effect logistic regression showed that a lower baseline PaO2/FiO2 was associated with an O2-response during the PP session (Table 3). The R/I before PP was not associated with an O2-response (OR 1.15; 95% CI [0.67–1.54], p = 0.942) and neither was the timing in days since intubation (OR 0.97; 95% CI [0.89–1.05], p = 0.446) (Supplementary Tables S2 and S3).

Table 3 Mixed effect logistic regression analysis for factors associated with an improvement in oxygenation in the prone position

	Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	p	
PaO2/FiO2 (/each decrease by 10 mmHg)	1.120	1.009–1.244	0.034	
Driving pressure (cmH2O)	1.029	0.966–1.096	0.375	
SAPS II	1.008	0.982–1.036	0.533	
n = 201 sessions

FiO2: inspired fraction in oxygen; PaO2: arterial partial pressure in oxygen; SAPS: simplified acute physiology score

Baseline variables associated with an improvement in lung mechanics during PP

The AOP could be measured before 156 (78%) PP sessions performed in 49 patients (Table 2). An AOP was absent (i.e., 0 cmH2O) before 81 (52%) sessions. In the 75 (48%) sessions before which it was present (i.e., ≥ 1 cmH2O), the value of AOP was 6 (5–9) cmH2O. Among the 156 sessions before which AOP was measured, the median R/I ratio was 0.53 (0.31–0.79), separating higher- and lower-recruiters (R/I ≥ 0.53 and < 0.53, respectively). The PP-induced increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was similar in higher- and lower-recruiters (p = 0.191) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Changes in lung mechanics and oxygenation in the prone position according to the higher- and lower-recruiter profiles. A change in R/I; B change in PaO2/FiO2; C change in driving pressure; D change in respiratory system compliance *p < 0.05: PP vs. Pre-PP FiO2: fraction inspired in oxygen; PaO2: arterial partial pressure in oxygen; R/I: recruitment-to-inflation ratio

In higher-recruiters, the DP decreased during the PP session, while it remained unchanged in lower-recruiters (Table 2; Fig. 1). The mixed effect logistic regression showed that a higher-recruiter status at baseline (OR 4.96; 95% CI [1.84–13.37], p = 0.002), a higher pre-PP DP (OR 1.43; 95% CI [1.20–1.71]/cmH2O, p < 0.001) and a higher BMI (OR 1.18; 95% CI [1.05–1.32]/kg.m−2, p = 0.004) were associated with a decrease in DP > 0 cmH2O during the PP session (Supplementary Table S4). The correlation between R/I before PP and the change in DP during PP was significant (r=− 0.31 (− 0.46; − 0.14), p < 0.001) and was not different between higher- and lower-recruiters.

In higher-recruiters, Crs increased during the PP session, while it remained unchanged in lower-recruiters (Table 2; Fig. 1). The mixed effect logistic regression showed that a higher-recruiter status (OR 6.95; 95% CI [2.30–20.99], p < 0.001), a lower Crs before the PP session (OR 0.85; 95% CI [0.78–0.93] /cmH2O, p < 0.001) and a higher BMI (OR 1.17; 95% CI [1.03–1.32]/kg.m−2, p = 0.016) were associated with an increase in Crs during the PP session (Supplementary table S5). The correlation between R/I before PP and the change in Crs during PP was significant (r = 0.37 (0.21; 0.51), p < 0.001) and was not different between higher- and lower-recruiters. In higher-recruiters (n = 69), the R/I decreased between before and the end of PP while it increased in lower-recruiters (Table 2; Fig. 1).

Association of the response in oxygenation of a PP session with the response to the next session.

For 137 sessions performed in 38 patients in whom ≥ 2 PP sessions had been performed, the O2-response of the previous session could be analyzed. For the 101 sessions in which oxygenation improved, there was a positive O2-response at the previous PP session in 75 (74%) cases. Conversely, in the other 36 sessions in which oxygenation did not improve, there was a positive O2-response at the previous PP session in 16 (44%) sessions (Supplementary Figure S2). The mixed effect logistic regression showed that a positive O2-response at the previous PP session was significantly associated with a significant improvement in oxygenation during the current session (Table 4).

Table 4 Mixed effect logistic regression analysis for factors associated with an improvement in oxygenation in the prone position, including the oxygen response at the previous session

	Odds ratio	95% Confidence interval	p	
PaO2/FiO2 (/each decrease by 10 mmHg)	1.127	0.970–1.310	0.117	
Driving pressure (cmH2O)	1.065	0.956–1.043	0.248	
SAPS II	1.005	0.967–1.043	0.814	
R/I ratio	0.986	0.618–1.574	0.954	
O2-response at previous PP session	3.690	1.270-10.718	0.017	
N = 106 sessions

FiO2 inspired fraction in oxygen; PaO2 arterial partial pressure in oxygen; PP prone position; R/I recruitment-to-inflation ratio; SAPS simplified acute physiology score

Return to supine position

The changes induced by returning the patient to the supine position were obtained for 137 sessions performed in 35 patients. They were assessed 7 (6–8) hours after the PP session (Supplementary Table S6). The R/I after returning the patient to the supine position was obtained in 102 sessions and was 0.53 (0.32–0.69), comprising 51 (50%) sessions in lower-recruiters and 51 (50%) in higher-recruiters. The R/I values at the three timepoints, i.e., before PP, at the end of PP and after PP, were obtained in 76 sessions (Supplementary Table S7).

After PP, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio decreased in both lower- and higher-recruiters. Compared to the end of the PP session, DP and Crs decreased in higher-recruiters, but they did not change in lower-recruiters, while the R/I did not change in lower- or in higher-recruiters (Supplementary Table S6 and Figure S3).

Discussion

In this prospective observational study in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, we found that (i) a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio before PP was associated with a positive O2-response during PP; (ii) a positive O2-response during the previous PP session was associated with the O2-response during the following session; and (iii) a higher potential of lung recruitability at baseline was associated with an improvement in lung mechanics during PP.

Oxygenation improvement

Although PP was widely used to treat severely ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic [28, 29], a reduction in its use was observed later [30]. One reason for this underuse of PP in daily practice might be that its positive benefit/risk ratio is not fully perceived by staff physicians and nurses, who are often overwhelmed by the burden of daily workload. Although safe, PP is time-consuming and staff must be trained and numerous. Also, pressure sores can develop secondary to long-lasting sessions ≥ 16 h [31]. Therefore, predicting the response to PP might be helpful in selecting patients for whom it should be beneficial.

First, we found that the lower the baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio, the higher the likelihood of a positive O2-response. The lower the baseline PaO2/FiO2, the greater the likelihood of a positive O2-response. A similar result has been reported in other studies in COVID-19-related ARDS [32, 33]. This finding is also consistent with the fact that in non-COVID-19 ARDS, PP is beneficial not in all ARDS forms but only in moderate-to-severe cases [2]. No other respiratory or hemodynamic variables recorded before the PP session were associated with an improvement in oxygenation during the session, particularly lung mechanics variables and the R/I ratio.

Second, we found that an improvement in oxygenation at the previous PP session was associated with a positive O2-response at the current session. Thus, in the absence of contra-indications, PP should be considered with little hesitation in patients in whom the previous session has significantly improved oxygenation. Nevertheless, a negative O2-response at the previous PP session should not necessarily discount PP, as 44% of PP sessions induced an improvement in oxygenation, whereas there was no O2-response at the previous session. However, deciding to perform new PP sessions based on the oxygenation response during the previous PP is debatable. Previous studies showed that this response in oxygenation does not influence the outcome, contrary to the response in lung mechanics, even though different results were observed in the specific population of COVID-19 patients with ARDS [34].

These results may be interesting, as most studies evaluating the effects of PP analyzed only one session, usually the first one [10, 14, 18, 32, 35]. In a retrospective study in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS experiencing ≥ 2 PP sessions, Weiss et al. found that an improvement in oxygenation during the second PP session was associated with a better outcome compared to those with no positive O2-response [34]. However, these authors only assessed the first three PP sessions and did not evaluate the impact of the O2-response of the previous session on the next one.

Lung recruitability and prone position

The R/I ratio has been proposed as an easy tool to assess lung recruitability at the bedside [13]. It significantly correlates with the proportion of lung tissue recruited by the change in PEEP, assessed through computed tomography scan [35] or electrical impedance tomography [14]. The R/I ratio also correlates with the improvement in Crs secondary to lung recruitment maneuvers [17]. Accordingly, we found that the improvement in DP and Crs induced by PP occurred only in higher-recruiters defined by a higher R/I, whereas in lower-recruiters, PP improved oxygenation without changing lung mechanics. We defined higher- and lower-recruiters by considering the median of measurements rather than a given threshold from previous literature. Although this may be criticized, it avoids the limitation of variability in the measurement of the R/I ratio between ventilators of different brands [36].

Our results are consistent with those of Cour et al., who reported that, during PP, R/I decreases in higher-recruiters and increases in lower-recruiters in patients with COVID-19 and ARDS [18]. Interestingly, the R/I increased less in that study than in ours, perhaps because it was assessed after only 2 h of PP, while we evaluated the R/I change at the end of the PP session. This timing issue may also explain why Taenaka et al. reported no change in R/I with PP when measured only 30 min after starting PP [14].

This result might have important implications for how R/I can be used to personalize ventilator settings in patients with ARDS undergoing PP. In higher-recruiters, if lung mechanics improve and R/I decreases with PP, this may reflect effective lung recruitment. The level of PEEP could be lowered to avoid overinflation, decrease lung strain and decrease the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. In lower-recruiters, if R/I increases with PP, it may reflect a gain in lung recruitability. This might be an argument to test a PEEP increase, as the patient might then be assessed as a higher-recruiter, or to extend the PP session duration. Indeed, long sessions appear feasible and safe [37–39] and might be effective in some patients [37, 40].

The association we observed between R/I before PP and the improvement in lung mechanics during PP may be clinically relevant. On the one hand, it has been shown that the improvement in outcome with PP in patients with ARDS was not associated with the improvement in oxygenation [12]. On the other hand, even though changes in Crs and DP may also be difficult to analyze, as PP can have different (and opposite) effects on lung and chest wall compliances, improvements in these respiratory parameters may still be beneficial. Indeed, Guérin et al. found in a secondary analysis of the PROSEVA [1] and ACURASYS [41] trials that improvements in DP and Crs were associated with survival in patients with ARDS [42]. As this latter study demonstrated an improvement in day-90 survival per each unit of DP on day-1, we chose to define a PP-induced decrease in DP ≥ 1 cmH2O as significant, and consequently did the same for Crs increases ≥ 1 mL/cmH2O. This probably emphasizes that the beneficial effects of PP on prognosis are likely due to minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury rather than only improving oxygenation and that non-response in terms of oxygenation should not be a disincentive in proposing further PP sessions to the patient.

Our study has several limitations. First, it was a single-center study, which may limit the generalizability of the results. However, only two patients with no ECMO screened during the study period were not included in the analysis and PP was performed quasi-systematically when PaO2/FiO2 was < 150 mmHg in included patients. Second, we did not assess factors associated with mortality because of this limited sample size, but this was not the purpose of the study. Third, we included only patients with COVID-19-related ARDS due to the inclusion period. Such forms of ARDS may be a specific entity, with higher Crs than other forms [43, 44], though this is debated [45]. Moreover, pulmonary fibrosis that may occur in such patients could impact the PP response. Nevertheless, the mixed effect logistic regression model we used did not evidence an influence of time on the effects of PP on lung mechanics and oxygenation. Fourth, the definition of the O2-response as an increase in PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 20 mmHg is arbitrary. However, this threshold proposed by Chatte et al. in 1997 [11] has been used in several subsequent studies [10, 12, 26]. Fifth, all patients were not paralyzed during PP sessions. Not only may NMBA allow more volume expansion by preventing expiratory muscle activity, but there may also be a synergistic effect of NMBA with PP. However, lung mechanics were similar during PP sessions with and without NMBA. Finally, no specific adaptation of PEEP in the supine or prone position was performed, though this may maximize recruitment. However, this allowed us to evaluate the specific involvement of the R/I ratio.

In conclusion, we found that the lower the PaO2/FiO2 ratio before a PP session, the greater the likelihood of improving oxygenation with PP. The O2-response during a PP session was also more likely if the previous PP session induced a positive O2-response. Whereas oxygenation improved during PP in both higher- and lower-recruiters, as defined according to the R/I, lung mechanics improved only in higher-recruiters.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1.

Abbreviations

AOP Airway opening pressure

ARDS Acute respiratory distress syndrome

Crs Compliance of the respiratory system

DP Driving pressure

ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

FiO2 The inspired fraction of oxygen

NMBA Neuromuscular blocking agents

PaO2 Arterial oxygen partial pressure

PEEP Positive end-expiratory pressure

PP Prone positioning

R/I Recruitment-to-inflation ratio

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank all the teams of doctors, nurses, and care helpers of the medical ICU of Bicêtre Hospital. This study would not have been possible without their daily work.

Author contributions

C.L. and X.M. had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: C.L. and X.M., with advice from all the authors. Acquisition of data: C.L., R.S., L.J., F.L., M.F., S.A., H.B., N.B., L.G., N.F., Q.F., T.G., A.P., G.R., A.Y. and T.P. Analysis or interpretation of data: C.L., T.P. and X.M. Drafting of the manuscript: C.L. and X.M. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: C.L., T.P. and X.M. Supervision: JL.T. and X.M. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The current study was performed in accordance with French law and the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society (CE SRLF 21‑01) and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04635267) on November 13th, 2020. All patients or close relatives were informed that their data were included in the cohort.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

C.L. received honoraria for lectures from Sedana Medical. X.M. is a member of the Medical Advisory Board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge) and received honoraria for lectures from Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge), Baxter Healthcare and AOL. J‑L.T. is a member of the Medical Advisory Board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge). The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential competing interests related to this study.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Guérin C Reignier J Richard J-C Beuret P Gacouin A Boulain T Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med 2013 368 2159 68 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103 23688302
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;368:2159–68.23688302
2. Munshi L Del Sorbo L Adhikari NKJ Hodgson CL Wunsch H Meade MO Prone position for acute respiratory distress syndrome. a systematic review and meta-analysis Annals ATS 2017 14 S280 8 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-343OT
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. Annals ATS. 2017;14:S280-8.
3. Papazian L Aubron C Brochard L Chiche J-D Combes A Dreyfuss D Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome Ann Intensive Care 2019 9 69 10.1186/s13613-019-0540-9 31197492
Papazian L, Aubron C, Brochard L, Chiche J-D, Combes A, Dreyfuss D, et al. Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9:69.31197492
4. Grasselli G Calfee CS Camporota L Poole D Amato MBP Antonelli M ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies Intensive Care Med 2023 49 727 59 10.1007/s00134-023-07050-7 37326646
Grasselli G, Calfee CS, Camporota L, Poole D, Amato MBP, Antonelli M, et al. ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:727–59.37326646
5. Guérin C Albert RK Beitler J Gattinoni L Jaber S Marini JJ Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom Intensive Care Med 2020 46 2385 96 10.1007/s00134-020-06306-w 33169218
Guérin C, Albert RK, Beitler J, Gattinoni L, Jaber S, Marini JJ, et al. Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:2385–96.33169218
6. Richter T Bellani G Harris RS Melo MFV Winkler T Venegas JG Effect of Prone position on Regional Shunt, Aeration, and perfusion in experimental Acute Lung Injury Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005 172 480 7 10.1164/rccm.200501-004OC 15901611
Richter T, Bellani G, Harris RS, Melo MFV, Winkler T, Venegas JG, et al. Effect of Prone position on Regional Shunt, Aeration, and perfusion in experimental Acute Lung Injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:480–7.15901611
7. Boesing C Graf PT Schmitt F Thiel M Pelosi P Rocco PRM Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study Crit Care 2022 26 82 10.1186/s13054-022-03956-8 35346325
Boesing C, Graf PT, Schmitt F, Thiel M, Pelosi P, Rocco PRM, et al. Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study. Crit Care. 2022;26:82.35346325
8. Lai C Monnet X Teboul J-L Hemodynamic implications of prone positioning in patients with ARDS Crit Care 2023 27 98 10.1186/s13054-023-04369-x 36941694
Lai C, Monnet X, Teboul J-L. Hemodynamic implications of prone positioning in patients with ARDS. Crit Care. 2023;27:98.36941694
9. Nakos G Tsangaris I Kostanti E Nathanail C Lachana A Koulouras V Effect of the prone position on patients with hydrostatic pulmonary edema compared with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000 161 360 8 10.1164/ajrccm.161.2.9810037 10673172
Nakos G, Tsangaris I, Kostanti E, Nathanail C, Lachana A, Koulouras V, et al. Effect of the prone position on patients with hydrostatic pulmonary edema compared with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:360–8.10673172
10. Gattinoni L Vagginelli F Carlesso E Taccone P Conte V Chiumello D Decrease in Paco2 with prone position is predictive of improved outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome* Crit Care Med 2003 31 2727 33 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098032.34052.F9 14668608
Gattinoni L, Vagginelli F, Carlesso E, Taccone P, Conte V, Chiumello D, et al. Decrease in Paco2 with prone position is predictive of improved outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome*. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:2727–33.14668608
11. Chatte G Sab JM Dubois JM Sirodot M Gaussorgues P Robert D Prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997 155 473 8 10.1164/ajrccm.155.2.9032181 9032181
Chatte G, Sab JM, Dubois JM, Sirodot M, Gaussorgues P, Robert D. Prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155:473–8.9032181
12. Albert RK Keniston A Baboi L Ayzac L Guérin C Prone position–induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014 189 494 6 10.1164/rccm.201311-2056LE 24528322
Albert RK, Keniston A, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Guérin C. Prone position–induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:494–6.24528322
13. Chen L Del Sorbo L Grieco DL Junhasavasdikul D Rittayamai N Soliman I Potential for lung recruitment estimated by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A clinical trial Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020 201 178 87 10.1164/rccm.201902-0334OC 31577153
Chen L, Del Sorbo L, Grieco DL, Junhasavasdikul D, Rittayamai N, Soliman I, et al. Potential for lung recruitment estimated by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201:178–87.31577153
14. Taenaka H Yoshida T Hashimoto H Firstiogusran AMF Ishigaki S Iwata H Personalized ventilatory strategy based on lung recruitablity in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective clinical study Crit Care 2023 27 152 10.1186/s13054-023-04360-6 37076900
Taenaka H, Yoshida T, Hashimoto H, Firstiogusran AMF, Ishigaki S, Iwata H, et al. Personalized ventilatory strategy based on lung recruitablity in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective clinical study. Crit Care. 2023;27:152.37076900
15. Beloncle FM Pavlovsky B Desprez C Fage N Olivier P-Y Asfar P Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome Ann Intensive Care 2020 10 55 10.1186/s13613-020-00675-7 32399901
Beloncle FM, Pavlovsky B, Desprez C, Fage N, Olivier P-Y, Asfar P, et al. Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:55.32399901
16. Cappio Borlino S Hagry J Lai C Rocca E Fouqué G Rosalba D The effect of PEEP on pulmonary vascular resistance depends on lung recruitability in ARDS patients Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2024 10.1164/rccm.202402-0383OC 38924520
Cappio Borlino S, Hagry J, Lai C, Rocca E, Fouqué G, Rosalba D, et al. The effect of PEEP on pulmonary vascular resistance depends on lung recruitability in ARDS patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024. 10.1164/rccm.202402-0383OC.38924520
17. Zerbib Y Lambour A Maizel J Kontar L De Cagny B Soupison T Respiratory effects of lung recruitment maneuvers depend on the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome Crit Care 2022 26 12 10.1186/s13054-021-03876-z 34983597
Zerbib Y, Lambour A, Maizel J, Kontar L, De Cagny B, Soupison T, et al. Respiratory effects of lung recruitment maneuvers depend on the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2022;26:12.34983597
18. Cour M Bussy D Stevic N Argaud L Guérin C Differential effects of prone position in COVID-19-related ARDS in low and high recruiters Intensive Care Med 2021 47 1044 6 10.1007/s00134-021-06466-3 34181043
Cour M, Bussy D, Stevic N, Argaud L, Guérin C. Differential effects of prone position in COVID-19-related ARDS in low and high recruiters. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1044–6.34181043
19. ARDS Definition Task ForceRanieri VM Rubenfeld GD Thompson BT Ferguson ND Caldwell E Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition JAMA 2012 307 2526 33 22797452
ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA. 2012;307:2526–33.22797452
20. Cecconi M De Backer D Antonelli M Beale R Bakker J Hofer C Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European society of intensive care medicine Intensive Care Med 2014 40 1795 815 10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z 25392034
Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European society of intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.25392034
21. Mercat A Richard J-CM Vielle B Jaber S Osman D Diehl J-L Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2008 299 646 55 10.1001/jama.299.6.646 18270353
Mercat A, Richard J-CM, Vielle B, Jaber S, Osman D, Diehl J-L, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:646–55.18270353
22. Roca O Goligher EC Amato MBP Driving pressure: applying the concept at the bedside Intensive Care Med 2023 49 991 5 10.1007/s00134-023-07071-2 37191695
Roca O, Goligher EC, Amato MBP. Driving pressure: applying the concept at the bedside. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:991–5.37191695
23. Chen L Del Sorbo L Grieco DL Shklar O Junhasavasdikul D Telias I Airway closure in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an underestimated and misinterpreted phenomenon Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018 197 132 6 10.1164/rccm.201702-0388LE 28557528
Chen L, Del Sorbo L, Grieco DL, Shklar O, Junhasavasdikul D, Telias I, et al. Airway closure in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an underestimated and misinterpreted phenomenon. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197:132–6.28557528
24. Merlo J A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 60 290 7 10.1136/jech.2004.029454 16537344
Merlo J. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:290–7.16537344
25. Austin PC Merlo J Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis: multilevel logistic regression Statist Med 2017 36 3257 77 10.1002/sim.7336
Austin PC, Merlo J. Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis: multilevel logistic regression. Statist Med. 2017;36:3257–77.
26. Langer T Brioni M Guzzardella A Carlesso E Cabrini L Castelli G Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients Crit Care 2021 25 128 10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2 33823862
Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, et al. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Crit Care. 2021;25:128.33823862
27. Peduzzi P Concato J Kemper E Holford TR Feinstein AR A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis J Clin Epidemiol 1996 49 1373 9 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3 8970487
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373–9.8970487
28. COVID-ICU Group on behalf of the REVA Network and the COVID-ICU Investigators Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study Intensive Care Med 2021 47 60 73 10.1007/s00134-020-06294-x 33211135
COVID-ICU Group on behalf of the REVA Network and the COVID-ICU Investigators. Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:60–73.33211135
29. Greco M De Corte T Ercole A Antonelli M Azoulay E Citerio G Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave: the global UNITE-COVID study Intensive Care Med 2022 48 690 705 10.1007/s00134-022-06705-1 35596752
Greco M, De Corte T, Ercole A, Antonelli M, Azoulay E, Citerio G, et al. Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave: the global UNITE-COVID study. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:690–705.35596752
30. Hochberg C Psoter K Eakin M Hager D Declining use of prone positioning after high initial uptake in COVID-19 adult respiratory distress syndrome* Crit Care Med 2023 51 1547 51 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005969 37294144
Hochberg C, Psoter K, Eakin M, Hager D. Declining use of prone positioning after high initial uptake in COVID-19 adult respiratory distress syndrome*. Crit Care Med. 2023;51:1547–51.37294144
31. Girard R Baboi L Ayzac L Richard J-C Guérin C for the Proseva trial group The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning Intensive Care Med 2014 40 397 403 10.1007/s00134-013-3188-1 24352484
Girard R, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Richard J-C, Guérin C, for the Proseva trial group. The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:397–403.24352484
32. Camporota L Sanderson B Chiumello D Terzi N Argaud L Rimmelé T Prone position in COVID-19 and -COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: an international multicenter observational comparative study* Crit Care Med 2022 50 633 43 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005354 34582426
Camporota L, Sanderson B, Chiumello D, Terzi N, Argaud L, Rimmelé T, et al. Prone position in COVID-19 and -COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: an international multicenter observational comparative study*. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:633–43.34582426
33. Gleissman H Forsgren A Andersson E Lindqvist E Lipka Falck A Cronhjort M Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2021 65 360 3 10.1111/aas.13741 33165936
Gleissman H, Forsgren A, Andersson E, Lindqvist E, Lipka Falck A, Cronhjort M, et al. Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021;65:360–3.33165936
34. Weiss TT Cerda F Scott JB Kaur R Sungurlu S Mirza SH Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study Br J Anaesth 2021 126 48 55 10.1016/j.bja.2020.09.042 33158500
Weiss TT, Cerda F, Scott JB, Kaur R, Sungurlu S, Mirza SH, et al. Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126:48–55.33158500
35. Del Sorbo L Tisminetzky M Chen L Brochard L Arellano D Brito R Association of lung recruitment and change in recruitment-to-inflation ratio from supine to prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome Crit Care 2023 27 140 10.1186/s13054-023-04428-3 37055792
Del Sorbo L, Tisminetzky M, Chen L, Brochard L, Arellano D, Brito R, et al. Association of lung recruitment and change in recruitment-to-inflation ratio from supine to prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2023;27:140.37055792
36. Cour M Biscarrat C Stevic N Degivry F Argaud L Guérin C Recruitment-to-inflation ratio measured with modern intensive care unit ventilators: how accurate is it? Crit Care 2022 26 85 10.1186/s13054-022-03961-x 35351182
Cour M, Biscarrat C, Stevic N, Degivry F, Argaud L, Guérin C. Recruitment-to-inflation ratio measured with modern intensive care unit ventilators: how accurate is it? Crit Care. 2022;26:85.35351182
37. Walter T Zucman N Mullaert J Thiry I Gernez C Roux D Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related ARDS: benefits and detriments Crit Care 2022 26 208 10.1186/s13054-022-04081-2 35804453
Walter T, Zucman N, Mullaert J, Thiry I, Gernez C, Roux D, et al. Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19-related ARDS: benefits and detriments. Crit Care. 2022;26:208.35804453
38. Cornejo RA Montoya J Gajardo AIJ Graf J Alegría L Baghetti R Continuous prolonged prone positioning in COVID-19-related ARDS: a multicenter cohort study from Chile Ann Intensive Care 2022 12 109 10.1186/s13613-022-01082-w 36441352
Cornejo RA, Montoya J, Gajardo AIJ, Graf J, Alegría L, Baghetti R, et al. Continuous prolonged prone positioning in COVID-19-related ARDS: a multicenter cohort study from Chile. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:109.36441352
39. Walter T Ricard J-D Extended prone positioning for intubated ARDS: a review Crit Care 2023 27 264 10.1186/s13054-023-04526-2 37408074
Walter T, Ricard J-D. Extended prone positioning for intubated ARDS: a review. Crit Care. 2023;27:264.37408074
40. Carsetti A Damia Paciarini A Marini B Pantanetti S Adrario E Donati A Prolonged prone position ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 patients is feasible and effective Crit Care 2020 24 225 10.1186/s13054-020-02956-w 32414420
Carsetti A, Damia Paciarini A, Marini B, Pantanetti S, Adrario E, Donati A. Prolonged prone position ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 patients is feasible and effective. Crit Care. 2020;24:225.32414420
41. Papazian L Perrin G Seghboyan J-M Guérin C Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med 2010 363 1107 16 10.1056/NEJMoa1005372 20843245
Papazian L, Perrin G, Seghboyan J-M, Guérin C. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1107–16.20843245
42. Guérin C Papazian L Reignier J Ayzac L Loundou A Forel J-M Effect of driving pressure on mortality in ARDS patients during lung protective mechanical ventilation in two randomized controlled trials Crit Care 2016 20 384 10.1186/s13054-016-1556-2 27894328
Guérin C, Papazian L, Reignier J, Ayzac L, Loundou A, Forel J-M, et al. Effect of driving pressure on mortality in ARDS patients during lung protective mechanical ventilation in two randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2016;20:384.27894328
43. Chiumello D Busana M Coppola S Romitti F Formenti P Bonifazi M Physiological and quantitative CT-scan characterization of COVID-19 and typical ARDS: a matched cohort study Intensive Care Med 2020 46 2187 96 10.1007/s00134-020-06281-2 33089348
Chiumello D, Busana M, Coppola S, Romitti F, Formenti P, Bonifazi M, et al. Physiological and quantitative CT-scan characterization of COVID-19 and typical ARDS: a matched cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:2187–96.33089348
44. Gattinoni L Busana M Giosa L Macrì M Quintel M Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2019 40 094 100 10.1055/s-0039-1685180
Gattinoni L, Busana M, Giosa L, Macrì M, Quintel M. Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;40:094–100.
45. Goligher EC Ranieri VM Slutsky AS Is severe COVID-19 pneumonia a typical or atypical form of ARDS? And does it matter? Intensive Care Med 2021 47 83 5 10.1007/s00134-020-06320-y 33237346
Goligher EC, Ranieri VM, Slutsky AS. Is severe COVID-19 pneumonia a typical or atypical form of ARDS? And does it matter? Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:83–5.33237346
