Combined Effects of Prone Positioning and Airway Pressure Release Ventilation on Oxygenation in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Creative Commons License

Ergün B., Yakar M. N., Küçük M., BAGHIYEVA N., Emecen A. N., YAKA E., ...More

Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, vol.51, no.3, pp.188-198, 2023 (Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 51 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.4274/tjar.2022.22783
  • Journal Name: Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation
  • Journal Indexes: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.188-198
  • Keywords: Airway pressure-release ventilation, ARDS, intensive care units, mortality, SARS-CoV-2
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes


Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) support and prone positioning are essential treatments for severe COVID-19 ARDS. We aimed to determine the combined effect of prone position and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) modes on oxygen improvement in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19. Methods: This prospective observational study included 40 eligible patients (13 female, 27 male). Of 40 patients, 23 (57.5%) were ventilated with APRV and 17 (42.5%) were ventilated with controlled modes. A prone position was applied when the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio <150 mmHg despite IMV in COVID-19 ARDS. The numbers of patients who completed the first, second, and third prone were 40, 25, and 15, respectively. Incident barotrauma events were diagnosed by both clinical findings and radiological images. Results: After the second prone, the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio of the control group [189 (150-237)] vs. 127 (100-146) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.025). Similarly, after the third prone, the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio of the control group [194 (132-263)] vs. 83 (71-136) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.021). Barotrauma events were detected in 13.0% of the patients in the APRV group and 11.8% of the patients in the control group (P=1000). The 28-day mortality was not different in the APRV group than in the control group (73.9% vs. 70.6%, respectively, P=1000). Conclusion: Using the APRV mode during prone positioning improves oxygenation, especially in the second and third prone positions, without increasing the risk of barotrauma. However, no benefit on mortality was detected.