Effectiveness of Prone Position with its Moderating Factors in Non-Intubated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Tan, Julianus Yudhistira and Togatorop, Via Eliadora and Koerniawan, Dheni and Kosasih, Cecep Eli and Mediani, Henny Suzana Effectiveness of Prone Position with its Moderating Factors in Non-Intubated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Meta-Analysis. Jurnal Ners, 19 (4). pp. 469-490. ISSN 2502-5791

	Text cover_issue_2780_en_US.pdf Download (1MB)
	Text article_469-491_60867.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (724kB)
	Text daftar isi Vol. 19 No. 4 (2024)_ NOVEMBER 2024 _ Jurnal Ners.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB)
	Text Editorial Team _ Jurnal Ners.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (4MB)
	Text Full Repository.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (6MB)

Abstract

Introduction: While numerous meta-analyses have explored the efficacy of awake prone position (APP), most have concentrated solely on intubation rate among Covid-19 patients without comprehensively identifying the influencing factors. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of APP along with its moderating factors on oxygenation, intubation rate, and mortality in non-intubated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to December 2022. JBI critical appraisal tools were used to assess the study quality. Random-effects model was employed to calculate pooled standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. Results: Among the 39 studies included, most patients were suffering from Covid-19, using conventional oxygen therapy, and receiving APP outside the ICU. APP significantly improved the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (SMD=0.70, 95% CI=0.51-0.88) and SpO2/FiO2 ratio (SMD=0.76, 95% CI=0.51-1.01), while also reducing the risk of intubation (RR=0.66, 95% CI=0.51-0.85) and mortality (RR=0.62, 95% CI=0.49-0.78). Factors including severity, respiratory device, body mass index, detail of position, use of medication assistance, total duration, follow-up time, position at follow-up, and study design significantly influence the effectiveness of APP. APP did not lead to significant improvements in length of stay and adverse events Conclusions: APP is a safe and beneficial intervention, enhancing oxygenation and reducing intubation and mortality rates in non-intubated ARDS patients. Importantly, various patient and intervention characteristics should be taken into account when implementing APP. Further well-designed experimental studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Actions (login required)

View Item