Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of prone position in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 22, Article number: 234 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The application of prone position (PP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is controversial.

Objectives

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of application of PP during VV-ECMO in patients with ARDS.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of patients who met the Berlin definition of ARDS, and were supported with VV-ECMO. We divided the patients into two groups. The prone group included patients who were supported by VV-ECMO, and experienced at least one period of PP, while those without PP during VV-ECMO were defined as the supine group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:1 was introduced to minimize potential confounders. The primary outcomes were the complications of PP and the change of arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of the inspiration (PaO2/FiO2) ratio after PP. The secondary outcomes were hospital survival, ICU survival, and ECMO weaning rate.

Results

From April 2013 to October 2020, a total of 91 patients met the diagnostic criteria of ARDS who were supported with ECMO. 38 patients (41.8%) received at least one period of PP during ECMO, while 53 patients (58.2%) were maintained in supine position during ECMO. 22 minor complications were reported in the prone group and major complications were not found. The other ECMO-related complications were similar between two groups. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved after PP compared with before (174.50 (132.40–228.25) mmHg vs. 158.00 (122.93–210.33) mmHg, p < 0.001). PSM selected 25 pairs of patients with similar characteristics. Hospital survival or ICU survival did not differ between the two groups (40% vs. 28%, p = 0.370; 40% vs. 32%, p = 0.556). Significant difference of ECMO weaning rate between two groups was not found (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.087).

Conclusions

PP during VV-ECMO was safe and could improve oxygenation. A large-scale and well-designed RCT is needed in the future.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a type of acute, diffuse, inflammatory lung injury that is characterized by the rapid development of hypoxemia, and is associated with high mortality and high health care costs especially in the intensive care unit (ICU) [1,2,3]. Prone position (PP) as a postural therapy can optimize respiratory mechanics, improve ventilation-perfusion matching, ameliorate the right ventricular function, and reduce the risk of ventilator induced lung injury (VILI) via reduction of the stress and strain across the lungs [4,5,6,7,8]. The Positioning Severe ARDS Patients (PROSEVA) study demonstrated that early and prolonged mechanical ventilation in PP was associated with significant survival advantage for patients with severe ARDS [9]. As a potent salvage therapy, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) rests the lungs and reduces the risk of VILI for severe patients with ARDS [10]. The individual participant data meta-analysis of the ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS (EOLIA) and the Conventional Ventilatory Support versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Adult Respiratory Failure (CERSA) trials supported the efficacy of ECMO for patients with ARDS in improving survival rate [11].

The above studies demonstrated better prognoses of patients with ARDS who were treated by ECMO or PP, while the safety and efficacy of combination of these two therapies has not been evaluated. In clinical practice, the use of PP in patients with ARDS supported by ECMO is limited by lack of experience and potential risk of serious complications, such as bleeding from cannula insertion sites, dislodgment, and decrease of extracorporeal blood flow or extreme hemodynamic instability etc. Previous studies reported that PP during ECMO was safe and improved oxygenation [12,13,14]. However, in recent years, efficacy evaluation tended to focus on survival rate and ECMO weaning rate, and the results of studies were controversial [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

Thus, we performed a retrospective analysis of PP in patients with ARDS supported by ECMO, which aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy. The primary outcomes were the safety of PP during ECMO and the change of arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspiration (PaO2/FiO2) ratio after PP. The secondary outcomes were hospital survival, ICU survival, and ECMO weaning rate.

Methods

Study design and population

This is a retrospective study enrolling patients treated in the 30-bed medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a teaching hospital at Beijing, China from April 2013 to October 2020. All 91 patients included in our study met the Berlin definition of ARDS [2] and were supported with VV-ECMO. All participants were older than 14 years because otherwise they would be triaged to pediatric department. We did not include patients with COVID-19. Patients who received at least one period of PP during ECMO were categorized into the prone group, while those without PP were defined as the supine group. ARDS treatment was carried out in both groups according to the currently valid guidelines.

Patients’ demographic characteristics, comorbidities, risk factors, pathogen, laboratory examinations, organ support, and ventilation or ECMO parameters were obtained from the hospital electronic medical records system, nursing records system, intensive care system, laboratory examination system, and radiological examination system.

First, we compared the two groups to explore the differences at the time of admission, before ECMO, and the first day of ECMO. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:1 was introduced to minimize influence of potential confounders. Second, in the prone group, an analysis was conducted by comparing ventilation, ECMO, and arterial blood gas parameters between before and after prone position.

We have attached the STROBE guidelines as a supplementary table to ensure adequate quality of reporting of the study (Additional file 1: Table S10).

VV-ECMO and prone position management

VV-ECMO

VV-ECMO was performed using a venovenous circuit with two cannulas, usually in the femoral vein and internal jugular vein. Cannulations were performed by two experienced physicians in Seldinger’s technique, and all circuit surfaces were heparin-coated. The goal of anticoagulation was individualized according to risk of bleeding, coagulant function, and thrombotic tendency, which was monitored by measuring activated clotting time (ACT) and activated partial prothrombin time (APTT) every 4 h. In order to minimize the occurrence of VILI, the parameters of mechanical ventilation (MV) was reduced during ECMO, and the ECMO blood flow was adjusted to maintain the peripheral oxygen saturation level of 85–90%, and the partial pressure of arterial oxygen level of 50 mmHg. Typical ventilator settings were as follows: respiratory rate ≤ 25 bpm, tidal volume ≤ 4–6 ml/kg, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≤ 15cmH2O, plateau pressure ≤ 30cmH2O, driving pressure ≤ 15cmH2O, and FiO2 ≤ 0.5. The management of fluid balance and the use of vasoactive drugs were driven by clinical judgement of physicians. Sedative and analgesic drugs were routinely used to achieve a RASS (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) between − 3 and − 1, and unless patients had high-risk of lung injury or strong respiratory drive, neuromuscular blocking agents were not routinely given. All cannulas and lines were carefully handled, and the running status of VV-ECMO was closely monitored by medical team. ECMO weaning, which is defined as being free from ECMO and alive for at least 48 h, was attempted after the patient has improved sufficiently with reasonable ventilator settings such as FiO2 < 0.4, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) < 25cmH2O, stable breathing pattern, and respiration rate < 30 bpm.

Prone position

According to the judgment of our medical team, PP was done in patients who had difficulties in maintenance of oxygenation, requirement of aggressive sputum drainage, or had potential difficulties in weaning ECMO. When PP was performed in ECMO patients, at least six health care workers were involved, including four (usually physicians) performing the turning of the patient, one (usually a nurse) looking after the ECMO and other circuit, and one (usually a respiratory therapist) for the management and protection of the endotracheal tube. Usually, the duration of one period of PP was between 12 and 16 h, unless the occurrence of major irreversible or life-threatening complication.

Complications

Complications were classified into major (cardiac arrest, difficult to correct hemodynamic instability, malignant arrhythmia, or dislodgment) and minor (pressure sores, edema, vomiting, or other reversible complications). It is noteworthy that the dislodgement of ECMO cannulas, which could lead to irreversible decrease of blood flow on ECMO and need adjust the position of ECMO cannulas, was considered a major complication.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS 26.0 for Windows software (SPSS Inc. Chicago. IL. USA). A statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05. Categorical variables were reported as frequency and percentage, continuous variables were reported as mean (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile ranges). Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, and for continuous variables, the t test or Mann–Whitney U test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the differences between groups.

PSM method was applied at ratio of 1:1 between the prone group and the supine group, with a nearest neighbor matching algorithm using a caliper of 0.2. Age, pathogen spectrum, respiratory support, PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to ECMO, prone position before ECMO, and barotrauma before and during ECMO were matched in PSM to derive the cohort.

Results

Baseline characteristics

38 patients (41.8%) received at least one period of PP during VV-ECMO, while 53 patients (58.2%) were maintained in supine position during VV-ECMO (Fig. 1). A total of 167 periods of PP were performed throughout the study. The mean duration of PP was 14 (12–16) h. The time from ECMO initiation to the first PP section was 2 (0.9–4.9) days. 4 (2.0–5.3) PP episodes were performed per patient (Additional file 1: Table S9, Fig. 2). The mean age of all patients was 49 (37–63) years old, male patients accounted for 70.3% (n = 64), and the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 9 (6–12) points. PSM selected 25 pairs of patients with similar characteristics (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

A flowchart illustrated the enrollment of patients in our study. Propensity score matching was performed for age, pathogen spectrum, respiratory support, PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to ECMO, PP before ECMO, barotrauma before and during ECMO. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MV, mechanical ventilation; PP, prone positioning

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

The number of pronation for patients and the time from ECMO initiation to the first prone position section

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristic of the entire cohort and after propensity score matching analysis
Full size table

Before matching, we found statistical significance in age and the pathogen spectrum of ARDS induced by pneumonia. The prone group had a median age of 41 (31–50) years old, compared to 58 (44–64) years old in the supine group (p = 0.001). Viral infection, especially influenza virus, was the main pathogen of ARDS (62.6%), and was more common in the prone group (84.2% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.001). Invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) before ECMO was widely used in patients (90.1%), and moreover, all patients in the prone group were supported by IPPV. Barotrauma before ECMO was more common in the prone group than the supine group (31.6% vs. 11.3%, p = 0.017). In addition, the prone group had a higher level of total bilirubin (TBIL), creatine kinase (CK), and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) than the supine group. After matching, all baseline characteristics and parameters before ECMO and on the first day of ECMO were similar (Table 1, Additional file 1: Table S1–S4).

Primary and secondary outcomes

Complications

In the prone group, 16 patients suffered from at least one complication, 22 minor complications were reported totally, which were considered as prone positioning complications. Pressure sores and edema were observed in several patients. And a decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was encountered in one patient, which was subsequently recovered by fluid infusion and vasoactive agents. Beyond that, in seven patients we found a decrease of blood flow on ECMO, which was resolved by fluid infusion or optimized positioning in PP. Besides, we also found a increase of PaCO2 in one patient and a decrease of SpO2 in another, which were both subsequently corrected by the adjustment of ECMO and the ventilator parameters. Major complications such as dislodgment or difficult to correct hemodynamic instability or malignant ventricular arrhythmia or severe bleeding were not found (Table 2). The occurrence of ECMO-related complications were similar between the two groups (Additional file 1: Table S5).

Table 2 Complications associated with prone position
Full size table

The change of PaO2/FiO2 ratio

The PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved after PP compared with before (174.50 (132.40–228.25) mmHg vs. 158.00 (122.93–210.33) mmHg, p < 0.001). While heart rate (HR) (103 ± 22 vs. 98 ± 22 bpm, p = 0.003), SBP (131 ± 20 vs. 125 ± 21 mmHg, p < 0.001) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (86 ± 13 vs. 83 ± 13 mmHg, p = 0.016) were lower after PP. Furthermore, tidal volume significantly decreased after PP (7.48 (5.43–10.70) ml/kg vs. 7.01 (5.23–8.95) ml/kg, p = 0.009). We also found the blood flow of ECMO was decreased during PP (4.09 ± 0.75 vs. 3.98 ± 0.82, p < 0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3 Ventilator, ECMO and arterial blood gas parameters before and after prone positioning in the prone group
Full size table

Survival rate and ECMO weaning

In the PSM cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in hospital or ICU survival between the prone group and the supine group (40% vs. 28%, p = 0.370; 40% vs. 32%, p = 0.556). In addition, the difference in ECMO weaning rate between the two groups was also insignificant (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.087) (Table 4). To test the stability of the results, we also included these in logistic regression model (Additional file 1: Table S6–S8). Patients in the prone group had a longer duration of ECMO support than the supine group (14.5 (9.25–29.75) d vs. 8.00 (3.25–16) d, p = 0.007). Besides, the length of hospital stay (16 (8–27) d vs. 30 (17–40.5) d, p = 0.018) and the length of ICU stay (14 (6.69–25.94) d vs. 28.33 (16–40.5) d, p = 0.014) were also longer in the prone group (Table 4).

Table 4 Outcomes for patients in two groups
Full size table

Discussion

In this study, we explored the safety and efficacy of the application of PP in patients with ARDS supported with ECMO in a retrospective cohort. The main findings were of interest. First, PP in patients supported with VV-ECMO was safe. Second, the application of PP during VV-ECMO in patients with ARDS improved oxygenation without the enhancement of blood flow on ECMO or excess support of mechanical ventilation. However, there was no significant difference in hospital or ICU survival, or ECMO weaning rate.

We did not observe any major safety concerns such as severe bleeding from cannula insertion sites, dislodgment or extreme hemodynamic instability. However, owing to the design of retrospective analysis, some complications may be missed, but the major complications must have been documented in our study. All in all, in our study, there were no major complications in majority of the patients supported with ECMO. Therefore, with closely monitoring of the running status of VV-ECMO by experienced clinicians, PP during VV-ECMO is safe.

According to previous studies [12,13,14], there are consistent results indicating that PP during VV-ECMO in patients with ARDS improves oxygenation, although the time of assessment is not uniform. There are several potential explanations for the improvement of oxygenation of PP in patients with ARDS supported by VV-ECMO. First, the increased recruitment of alveolar in the dorsal lung results in better redistribution of ventilation in the dorsal regions where perfusion is maintained [26]. The better matching of the ventilation-perfusion ratio accounts for the improved oxygenation. Second, PP reduces stress and strain across the lungs, resulting in reduced risk of VILI [27]. Recently, Franchineau et al. used electric impedance tomography (EIT) to describe the impact of PP in patients receiving VV-ECMO and noted that the redistribution of tidal volumes and the end-expiratory lung impedance from the ventral to the dorsal regions with improvement were seen in static lung, which supports physiological benefits of PP in patients supported with ECMO, by modifying lung mechanics and potentially reducing risk of VILI [28]. In addition, PP can promote drainage of bronchial secretion and reduce right cardiac afterload [29]. However, oxygenation is affected by pump flow, recirculation of ECMO, heart minute output, and other comprehensive factors. Therefore, the results from our study are not able to confirm or negate other studies, owing to the limited number pf patients.

Our study did not show a significant difference in survival rate between the two groups, which was conflicting with previous studies [15, 16, 20, 24] and a meta-analysis of 13 studies [17]. Several reasons may explain this. First, in our center, we usually prefer to perform PP in patients who are difficult to maintain oxygenation after ECMO or have potential difficulties in weaning ECMO, while patients who have significant improvements in oxygenation after ECMO are usually maintained in supine position until ECMO weaning. It may generate an inter-relationship between PP and disease severity due to selection bias. The SOFA or APACHE II may not reflect the severity of lung disease. Second, we consider that the less duration of PP in our study results in the conflicting outcome (14 h in our study versus > 16 h in the PROSEVA trial). In addition, Zaaqoq et al. demonstrated that the duration of PP, time of day of PP, and the day of initiation of PP had temporal dimensions, which were unlikely to be dealt with properly in retrospective studies, might also contributed to bias [30]. Finally, our cohort was limited by a small sample size, even though prone positioning was used in younger patients with viral infections. Of note, patients in the prone group showed significantly prolonged duration of ECMO support and hospital stay. The first reason may be the survival advantage of PP, although the difference in survival rates is not statistically significant. Second, as mentioned above, patients in the prone group were more likely to have difficulties in maintenance of oxygenation after ECMO or potential difficulties in ECMO weaning. This phenomenon produces the immortal time bias. In short, patients need to be alive and event free to receive prone positioning, whereas others who died earlier on ECMO, or had ECMO stopped for futility did not receive prone positioning. Third, considering the higher treatment abandoning rate in the supine group, we deduced that patients in the supine group might have greater risk of organ failure or severity of illness, and thus shorten the duration of hospital stay. In addition, the need of more sedation and curarisation in prone group might increase the time of hospital stay.

Compared with the EOLIA study [31] and other major RCTs, our analysis reported a lower hospital or ICU survival, especially in the supine group. Several factors may account for this phenomenon. First, the PaO2/FiO2 was 64.9 (56–88.7) mmHg before ECMO in our analysis, and all patients met the criterion for ECMO treatment. Therefore, those patients who only met the mild or moderate ARDS criterion or only had high carbon dioxide levels were excluded. Second, the most common cause of ARDS in this study was pneumonia, which accounted for 96.7% and most of them had at least one organ failure (73.6%). This indicates the patients in our study have more severe illness. Last but not least, our center is considered as one of the major medical critical care centers in our country, and our patients are more likely to suffer higher risk of death who come from other regions. These above factors may contributed to the high mortality rate in our study.

In our study, we focused on the safety and efficacy of application of PP on patients with ARDS supported with ECMO. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis of the influence of PP in patients with ARDS who were supported with ECMO in China. However, this study has a number of limitations. First, this is a single-center retrospective study, the number of studied patients remains relatively small, and the criteria of deciding PP is uncertain, therefore possible selection bias and report bias are inevitable. Patients who had difficulty maintaining oxygenation may be eventually selected for PP, which may have contributed to the insignificant difference in survival rate between the two groups. Second, because of the differences between different centers, our findings may not be extended to other inexperienced centers. Besides, in the absence of randomization and standardization of mechanical ventilation and other treatment, it is not possible to quantify the true treatment effect. In addition, the time and the thresholds for initiating PP and duration of PP was not standardized. Finally, despite the applying of PSM, we cannot exclude residual confounding factors which may influence the results. To sum up, due to these limitations, a prospective randomized controlled study with larger sample size to explore the impact of PP on patients with ARDS supported by ECMO should be encouraged in the future.

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis suggested PP during VV-ECMO was safe, and could improve oxygenation. A large-scale and well-designed RCT may provide more convincing evidence and is expected in the near future.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Matthay MA, Ware LB, Zimmerman GA. The acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(8):2731–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ranieri VM, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Umbrello M, et al. Pathophysiology and management of acute respiratory distress syndrome in obese patients. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;40(1):40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gattinoni L, et al. Prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Rationale, indications, and limits. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(11):1286–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vieillard-Baron A, et al. Prone positioning unloads the right ventricle in severe ARDS. Chest. 2007;132(5):1440–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Galiatsou E, et al. Prone position augments recruitment and prevents alveolar overinflation in acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(2):187–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Broccard A, et al. Prone positioning attenuates and redistributes ventilator-induced lung injury in dogs. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(2):295–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Albert RK, Hubmayr RD. The prone position eliminates compression of the lungs by the heart. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(5):1660–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Guérin C, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Peek GJ, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1351–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Combes A, et al. ECMO for severe ARDS: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(11):2048–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kimmoun A, et al. Prolonged prone positioning under VV-ECMO is safe and improves oxygenation and respiratory compliance. Ann Intensive Care. 2015;5(1):35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guervilly C, et al. Prone positioning during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80(3):307–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kipping V, et al. Prone position during ECMO is safe and improves oxygenation. Int J Artif Organs. 2013;36(11):821–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zaaqoq AM, et al. Beneficial effect of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(2):275–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Petit M, et al. Prone-positioning for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(2):264–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Papazian L, et al. Effect of prone positioning on survival in adult patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(3):270–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Giani M, et al. Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled individual patient data analysis. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Poon WH, et al. Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Giani M, et al. Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A multicenter cohort study and propensity-matched analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;18(3):495–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chaplin H, McGuinness S, Parke R. A single-centre study of safety and efficacy of prone positioning for critically ill patients on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Aust Crit Care. 2021;34(5):446–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rilinger J, et al. Prone positioning in severe ARDS requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Garcia B, et al. Prone positioning under VV-ECMO in SARS-CoV-2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guervilly C, et al. Prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: time for a randomized trial? Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(7):1040–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lucchini A, et al. Application of prone position in hypoxaemic patients supported by veno-venous ECMO. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2018;48:61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krayer S, et al. Position and motion of the human diaphragm during anesthesia-paralysis. Anesthesiology. 1989;70(6):891–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mentzelopoulos SD, Roussos C, Zakynthinos SG. Prone position reduces lung stress and strain in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eur Respir J. 2005;25(3):534–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Franchineau G, et al. Prone positioning monitored by electrical impedance tomography in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome on veno-venous ECMO. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Repessé X, Charron C, Vieillard-Baron A. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the heart side of the moon. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016;22(1):38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zaaqoq AM, et al. Prone position during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: survival analysis needed for a time-dependent intervention. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Combes A, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The study was supported by the Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical sciences (2019TX320006). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peking University China-Japan Friendship School of Clinical Medicine, No. 2 Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People’s Republic of China

    Ziying Chen, Qinghua Ye, Qingyuan Zhan & Chen Wang

  2. Center for Respiratory Diseases, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Ziying Chen, Min Li, Sichao Gu, Xu Huang, Jingen Xia, Qinghua Ye, Qingyuan Zhan & Chen Wang

  3. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Ziying Chen, Min Li, Sichao Gu, Xu Huang, Jingen Xia, Qinghua Ye, Qingyuan Zhan & Chen Wang

  4. National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Ziying Chen, Min Li, Sichao Gu, Xu Huang, Jingen Xia, Qinghua Ye, Qingyuan Zhan & Chen Wang

  5. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Chen Wang

  6. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Suzhou Ninth Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou, People’s Republic of China

    Jiangnan Zheng

Authors
  1. Ziying Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sichao Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jingen Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qinghua Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiangnan Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Qingyuan Zhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study or to the data acquisition, analysis or interpretation; reviewed and approved the final manuscript; and significantly contributed to this study. Drs. QZ and CW took full responsibility for the integrity of the submission and publication and was involved in the study design. Dr ZC involved in data collection, statistical analysis and the drafting of the manuscript. Drs. ML, SG, XH, JX, QY and JZ involved in in data collection, had full access to all of the data in the study, and took responsibility for the integrity of the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingyuan Zhan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics committee of China-Japan Friendship Hospital approved this study (2015-ST-4). All methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was not required due to our retrospective study design, which was in accordance with the institutional requirements.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary tables.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Z., Li, M., Gu, S. et al. Effect of prone position in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 22, 234 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02026-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02026-7

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us