Positioning for acute respiratory distress in hospitalised infants and children

Abstract

Positioning for acute respiratory distress in hospitalised infants and children (Review)

Extended use of the modified Berlin Definition based on age-related subgroup analysis in pediatric ARDS

“…iNO might be more effective in patients with very severe oxygenation deficit and in immunocompromised patients [19, 20]. Results concerning prone positioning showed improved oxygenation in children and adults with a tendency to lead to a survival benefit in patients with severe oxygenation deficit in adult studies [21, 22]. Prone positioning was the third most common supportive therapy (54%) for patients in this study.…”

The effect of positioning on preterm infants’ sleep–wake states and stress behaviours during exposure to environmental stressors

“…Our findings confirm that the prone position facilitates sleep, even when adjusting for variance in environmental stressors (noise, light and stimulation/handling). Gillies et al (2012) have stated that placing infants in the prone position should only occur where full cardiorespiratory monitoring is available. In normal circumstances, it is recommended that healthy infants should be placed in the supine position to reduce the risk of SIDS.…”

“…Improved pulmonary mechanics demonstrated by a greater tidal volume and improved diaphragmatic function were also achieved in this position (Antunes et al, 2003). Although placing infants in the prone position may improve respiratory function, it is only recommended under continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring (Gillies et al, 2012). Other scholars have found no evidence of clinical improvement associated with any particular body position during ventilation (Balaguer et al, 2013).…”

Preventing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Failure

“…Prone positioning improves oxygenation in mechanically ventilated neonates, 44 , infants and children with acute respiratory distress. 45 Results in neonates on CPAP are conflicting, with several demonstrating improvements in oxygenation, respiratory rate, and EELV with prone and lateral positioning, 46–48 however another finding no difference in vital signs or oxygen saturations regardless of position. 49 None of the studies found evidence of harm or adverse effect associated with prone or lateral positioning.…”