ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2024
Prone positioning of nonintubated patients with COVID-19 in Australian intensive care units.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the use of and outcomes from awake prone positioning (APP) in nonintubated patients with COVID-19 in Australian intensive care units (ICUs) in comparison to those who did not receive APP, and to explore the temporal relationship between publication of APP research and changes in clinical practice. Design: Multicentre, observational cohort study. Setting: Seventy-eight Australian ICUs participating in SPRINT-SARI Australia. Participants: Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICU from 27 February 2020 until 30 June 2022. Main outcomes measures: Proportion of patients receiving APP, rates of invasive ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality. Results: 4711 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 28.6% (1347/4711) underwent APP. Use of APP rapidly increased during the Delta wave and then subsequently declined. Over this period, there were a total of 30 publications on APP. APP patients received a median of 2 (IQR 1-4) days prone positioning, were less unwell (median APACHE-II 13.0 vs. 15.0, p < 0.001), and were less likely to require invasive ventilation (27.9% vs. 34.9%, p < 0.001). Overall, there was no difference in hospital LOS (median 14 vs. 13 days, P = 0.420) or in-hospital mortality (HR 0.95, 0.8-1.11) in those that did and did not receive APP. However, in patients requiring invasive ventilation after their first day in the ICU, not receiving APP was associated with earlier time to intubation (median 1 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001) and lower adjusted in-hospital mortality (HR 0.70, CI 0.54-0.90). Conclusions: APP was rapidly adopted into practice within Australian ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic at the same time as a growing number of publications on the topic. A lower frequency of invasive ventilation was noted with APP overall, but in those who eventually required this intervention, APP was associated with greater risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.