Prone positioning reduces mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome in the low tidal volume era: a meta-analysis
Prone positioning for ARDS has been performed for decades without definitive evidence of clinical benefit. A recent multicenter trial demonstrated for the first time significantly reduced mortality with prone positioning. This meta-analysis was performed to integrate these findings with existing literature and test whether differences in tidal volume explain conflicting results among randomized trials.
Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and citation review. Included were randomized trials evaluating the effect on mortality of prone versus supine positioning during conventional ventilation for ARDS. The primary outcome was risk ratio of death at 60 days meta-analyzed using random effects models. Analysis stratified by high (>8 ml/kg predicted body weight) or low (≤8 ml/kg PBW) mean baseline tidal volume was planned a priori.
Seven trials were identified including 2,119 patients, of whom 1,088 received prone positioning. Overall, prone positioning was not significantly associated with the risk ratio of death (RR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.68–1.02; p = 0.073; I 2 = 64 %). When stratified by high or low tidal volume, prone positioning was associated with a significant decrease in RR of death only among studies with low baseline tidal volume (RR 0.66; 95 % CI 0.50–0.86; p = 0.002; I 2 = 25 %). Stratification by tidal volume explained over half the between-study heterogeneity observed in the unstratified analysis.
Prone positioning is associated with significantly reduced mortality from ARDS in the low tidal volume era. Substantial heterogeneity across studies can be explained by differences in tidal volume.
KeywordsAcute respiratory distress syndrome Acute lung injury Prone position Patient positioning Meta-analysis Randomized controlled trial
The authors would like to thank Gregor Voggenreiter, MD, for providing additional data for the analysis , Paul A. Bain, PhD, for his assistance with the literature search strategy, and Michael A. Stoto, PhD, for his assistance in development of the analysis plan. This work was supported by NIH T32 HL007633, K24 HL093218, and UM1 HL108724.
Conflicts of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 9.Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Carlesso E (2013) Body position changes redistribute lung computed-tomographic density in patients with acute respiratory failure: impact and clinical fallout through the following 20 years. Intensive Care Med 39:1909–1915. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-3066-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH et al (2008) Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 299:637–645. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.6.637 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar