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
Meta-Analysis
. 2008 Jun;34(6):1002-11.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1062-3. Epub 2008 Mar 19.

The effect of prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury: a meta-analysis. Areas of uncertainty and recommendations for research

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The effect of prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury: a meta-analysis. Areas of uncertainty and recommendations for research

Fekri Abroug et al. Intensive Care Med. 2008 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effects of ventilation in prone and in supine position in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS).

Design: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: BioMedCentral, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase (to November 2007), with additional information from authors.

Measurements and results: From selected randomised controlled trials comparing positioning in ALI/ARDS we extracted data concerning study design, disease severity, clinical outcomes, and adverse events. Five trials including 1,372 patients met the inclusion criteria for mortality analysis; one trial was added to assess the effects on acquisition of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The included trials were significantly underpowered and enrolled patients with varying severity. Prone positioning duration and mechanical ventilation strategy were not standardised across studies. Using a fixed-effects model, we did not find a significant effect of prone positioning (proning) on mortality (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.22). The PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio increased significantly more with proning (weighted means difference 25 mmHg, p < 0.00001). Proning was associated with a non-significant 23% reduction in the odds of VAP (p=0.09), and with no increase in major adverse airway complications: OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.71-1.43. Length of intensive care unit stay was marginally and not significantly increased by proning.

Conclusions: Prone position is not associated with a significant reduction in mortality from ALI/ARDS despite a significant increase in PaO(2)/FiO(2), is safe, and tends to decrease VAP. Published studies exhibit substantial clinical heterogeneity, suggesting that an adequately sized study optimising the duration of proning and ventilation strategy is warranted to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1990 Apr;68(4):1386-92 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 2004 Nov 17;292(19):2379-87 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1896-900 - PubMed
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1985 Sep;132(3):485-9 - PubMed
    1. J Crit Care. 2006 Mar;21(1):23-32; discussion 32-7 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms