Chest
Volume 94, Issue 1, July 1988, Pages 103-107
Journal home page for Chest

Clinical Investigations
The Prone Position in ARDS Patients: A Clinical Study

https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.94.1.103Get rights and content

The gas exchange and hemodynamics were evaluated before, during, and after a two-hour period of prone position in 13 moderate-severe ARDS patients. Lung computerized tomography was obtained in both the supine and prone positions in two of these patients. Average arterial oxygenation improved after prone positioning (p<0.01). A PaO2 improvement of at least 10 mm Hg after 30 minutes of prone position was used as a criterion to discriminate between responders and nonresponders to the postural change. Eight patients met the “responders” group criterion, and in the five nonresponder patients, the PaO2 did not change significantly throughout the study. Computerized tomograms in the prone position showed disappearance of posterobasal densities and appearance of new densities in the anterior regions, in both patients studied. One of these was a responder, the other a nonresponder. A brief test period in prone position is indicated in ARDS patients to identify those who may benefit from this postural treatment. The definite mechanism of the arterial oxygenation improvement observed remains to be clarified.

Section snippets

Material and Methods

Thirteen patients with bilateral ARDS were studied; age, sex, main diagnosis, and outcome are reported in Table 1. The severity of the respiratory insufficiency at the time of the study is described by the total static lung compliance (TSLC), the functional residual capacity (FRC), the venous admixture (Qva/Q), and the ventilatory conditions in which the study was carried out (Table 2).

Standard chest x-ray film confirmed the bilateral lung involvement, while the prevalence of dorsobasal

Results

In the overall population, the PaO2 rose significantly (p<0.01) after prone positioning (Fig 1); PaCO2 and the hemodynamic parameters were substantially unaffected.

Eight patients met the responders group inclusion criteria (patients 1 to 8 in Table 1, Table 2), showing a PaO2 increase after 30 minutes of prone position from 70±8 to 90±8 mm Hg (p<0.01). Five patients (9 to 13) did not experience any PaO2 improvement (PaO2 from 81±22 to 67±13 mm Hg, ns) and were included in the nonresponder group.

Discussion

Our findings confirm previous retrospective reports of gas exchange improvement in patients with moderate to severe respiratory failure when turned from the supine to the prone position. In this prospective study, the average arterial oxygenation significantly rose after prone positioning, when considering the overall population. However, in contrast with previous reports, not all patients benefitted from the postural change, and we therefore divided the population into two groups: responders

References (13)

  • J Ibanez et al.

    The effect of lateral position on gas exchange in patients with unilateral lung disease during mechanical ventilation

    Intensive Care Med

    (1981)
  • L Gattinoni et al.

    Morphological and functional changes induced by PEEP in ARF

    Intensive Care Med

    (1986)
  • RJ Maunder et al.

    Preservation of normal lung region in the adult respiratory distress syndrome: analysis by computed tomography

    JAMA

    (1986)
  • AC Bryan

    Comments of a devil's advocate

    Am Rev Respir Dis

    (1974)
  • WW Douglas et al.

    Improved oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory failure: the prone position

    Am Rev Respir Dis

    (1974)
  • MA Phiel et al.

    Use of extreme position changes in acute respiratory failure

    Crit Care Med

    (1976)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (303)

  • Prone Positioning in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Narrative Review

    2022, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
View all citing articles on Scopus

This study was supported in part by IRCCS, Ospedale Policlinico di Milano Progetto finalizzato 1986, No. 533.01

Manuscript received July 22; revision accepted January 9.

View full text