Back

Awake prone positioning effectiveness in moderate to severe COVID-19 a randomized controlled trial.

Nguyen Thanh, P.; Du, D. H.; Hai, H. B.; Nguyen, N. T.; Khoa, L. D. V.; Khanh, L. T. T.; Tran, L. H. B.; Linh, N. T. M.; Van, C. T. C.; Thao, D. P.; Trinh, N. T. D.; Kieu, P. T.; Truong, N. T.; Hoang, V. T.; Ngoc, N. T.; Vien, T. T. D.; Ly, V. T.; Khoa, T. D.; Beane, A.; Anibal, J. T.; Thwaites, G.; Geskus, R. B.; Clifton, D.; Dung, N. T. P.; Kestelyn, E.; Glover, G.; Tan, L. V.; Yen, L. M.; Tung, N. L. N.; Dung, N. T.; Thwaites, C. L.

2024-07-01 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2024.06.30.24309722 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesWe evaluated the efficacy and acceptability of awake-prone positioning (APP) in a randomised controlled trial, using a dedicated APP implementation team and wearable continuous-monitoring devices to monitor position and oximetry. MethodsThe trial was performed at a tertiary level hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, recruiting adults ([≥]18 years) hospitalised with moderate or severe COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen therapy via nasal/facemask systems or high-flow nasal canulae. Participants were randomized (1:1) to standard care or APP. The primary outcome was escalation of respiratory support within 28 days of randomisation. ResultsNinety-three patients were enrolled between March 2022 and March 2023; 80 (86%) had received [≥]2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. Significantly greater mean daily APP times were achieved in those allocated to APP, although most did not achieve the target 8 hours/day. We did not detect significant differences in the primary outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40-1.78, p=0.67) or secondary outcomes, including intubation rate and 28-day mortality. Particpants reported prone positioning was comfortable, although almost all preferred supine positioning. No adverse events associated with the intervention were reported. ConclusionsAPP was not associated with benefit, but was safe. Continuous monitoring with wearable devices was feasible and acceptable to patients. Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT05083130 FundingWellcome Trust Grant 089276/B/09/7, 217650/Z/19/Z and FDCO/Wellcome Trust 225437/Z/22/Z

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.