Background: Awake prone positioning (PP), or proning, is used to avoid intubations in hypoxic patients with COVID-19, but because of the disease's novelty and constant evolution of treatment strategies, the efficacy of awake PP is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of the literature to assess the intubation rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen or noninvasive ventilatory support who underwent awake PP. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases through August 15, 2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, observational studies, and case series. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for the primary outcome of intubation rate. We used moderator analysis and meta-regressions to assess sources of heterogeneity. We used the standard and modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scales (NOS) to assess studies' quality. Results: Our search identified 1043 articles. We included 16 studies from the original search and 2 in-press as of October 2020 in our analysis. All were observational studies. Our analysis included 364 patients; mean age was 56.8 (SD 7.12) years, and 68% were men. The intubation rate was 28% (95% CI 20%-38%, I 2 = 63%). The mortality rate among patients who underwent awake PP was 14% (95% CI 7.4%-24.4%). Potential sources of heterogeneity were study design and setting (practice and geographic). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated an intubation rate of 28% among hypoxic patients with COVID-19 who underwent awake PP. Awake PP in COVID-19 is feasible and practical, and more rigorous research is needed to confirm this promising intervention.

No abstract

Background Awake prone positioning (PP) has been used to avoid intubations in hypoxic COVID-19 patients, but there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy. Moreover, clinicians have little information to identify patients at high risk of intubation despite awake PP. We sought to assess the intubation rate among patients treated with awake PP in our Emergency Department (ED) and identify predictors of need for intubation. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted for known or suspected COVID-19 who were treated with awake PP in the ED. We excluded patients intubated in the ED. Our primary outcome was prevalence of intubation during initial hospitalization. Other outcomes were intubation within 48 h of admission and mortality. We performed classification and regression tree analysis to identify the variables most likely to predict the need for intubation. Results We included 97 patients; 44% required intubation and 21% were intubated within 48 h of admission. Respiratory oxygenation (ROX) index and P/F (partial pressure of oxygen / fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio measured 24 h after admission were the variables most likely to predict need for intubation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82). Conclusions Among COVID-19 patients treated with awake PP in the ED prior to admission, ROX index and P/F ratio, particularly 24 h after admission, may be useful tools in identifying patients at high risk of intubation.

The objective was to assess risk factors for HCV specific to the shelter-bound homeless population of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This is a retrospective analysis of data obtained from 306 patients who received HCV antibody testing at 4 homeless shelters in Philadelphia between March 2017 and June 2019. Risk factors for HCV infection specific to this population were analyzed using Fischer exact tests. Fourteen (4.6%) of 306 patients screened positive for HCV infection. Risk factors for HCV infection among this shelter-bound homeless population included injection drug use, inhalation drug use, and tattoos obtained while incarcerated. Although an estimated 2.8% of the population of Philadelphia is infected with HCV, 4.6% of those screened in this program tested positive, highlighting the increased prevalence of HCV among the shelter-bound homeless population and the importance of assessing risks for HCV infection inherent to this specific population.

There is limited evidence comparing the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to CPR in the management of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival and neurologic outcomes associated with ECPR versus CPR in the management of OHCA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing ECPR and CPR. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool to assess studies’ quality. We used random-effects models to compare outcomes between the pooled populations and moderator analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity and perform subgroup analysis. We identified 2088 articles and included 13, with 18,620 patients with OHCA. A total of 16,701 received CPR and 1919 received ECPR. Compared with CPR, ECPR was associated with higher odds of achieving favorable neurologic outcomes at 3 (OR 5, 95% CI 1.90–13.1, p < 0.01) and 6 months (OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.3–8.5, p < 0.01). We did not find a significant survival benefit or impact on neurologic outcomes at hospital discharge or 1 month following arrest. ECPR is a promising but resource-intensive intervention with the potential to improve long-term outcomes among patients with OHCA.