Introduction Prone position is known to improve mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be determined. In this review, we describe the mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise the current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients, and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic. Methods For our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020, and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive or mechanical ventilation and reported the use of prone position. The full text of eligible articles was reviewed, and data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted. Results We found seven studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance and improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked a description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation). Conclusions Based on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation.

Introduction There is lack of consensus on what constitutes best practice when assessing extubation readiness in children. This systematic review aims to synthesize data from existing literature on pre-extubation assessments and evaluate their diagnostic accuracies in predicting extubation failure (EF) in children. Methods A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane was performed from inception of each database to 15 July 2021. Randomized controlled trials or observational studies that studied the association between pre-extubation assessments and extubation outcome in the pediatric intensive care unit population were included. Meta-analysis was performed for studies that report diagnostic tests results of a combination of parameters. Results In total, 41 of 11,663 publications screened were included (total patients, n = 8111). Definition of EF across studies was heterogeneous. Fifty-five unique pre-extubation assessments were identified. Parameters most studied were: respiratory rate (RR) (13/41, n = 1945), partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (10/41, n = 1379), tidal volume (13/41, n = 1945), rapid shallow breathing index (RBSI) (9/41, n = 1400), and spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) (13/41, n = 5652). Meta-analysis shows that RSBI, compliance rate oxygenation pressure (CROP) index, and SBT had sensitivities ranging from 0.14 to 0.57. CROP index had the highest sensitivity [0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–0.73] and area under curve (AUC, 0.98). SBT had the highest specificity (0.93, 95% CI 0.92–0.94). Conclusions Pre-extubation assessments studied thus far remain poor predictors of EF. CROP index, having the highest AUC, should be further explored as a predictor of EF. Standardizing the EF definition will allow better comparison of pre-extubation assessments. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-022-00204-w.

Introduction: Prone position improves mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill COVID-19 patients remains to be determined. In this review, we describe mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic.Methods: For our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020 to April 16th 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020 and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or MV and reported the use of prone position. Full text of eligible articles was reviewed and data regarding study design patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted.Results: We found 7 studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance, improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation).Conclusions: Based on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation.