Physiological response to prone positioning in intubated adults with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has specific characteristics compared to ARDS in other populations. Proning is recommended by analogy with other forms of ARDS, but few data are available regarding its physiological effects in this population. This study aimed to assess the effects of proning on oxygenation parameters (PaO(2)/FiO(2) and alveolo-arterial gradient (Aa-gradient)), blood gas analysis, ventilatory ratio (VR), respiratory system compliance (C(RS)) and estimated dead space fraction (V(D)/V(T) HB). We also looked for variables associated with treatment failure. METHODS: Retrospective monocentric study of intubated COVID-19 ARDS patients managed with an early intubation, low to moderate positive end-expiratory pressure and early proning strategy hospitalized from March 6 to April 30 2020. Blood gas analysis, PaO(2)/FiO(2), Aa-gradient, VR, C(RS) and V(D)/V(T) HB were compared before and at the end of each proning session with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05 considered as significant). Proportions were assessed using Fischer exact test or Chi square test. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included for a total of 191 proning sessions, median duration of 16 (5–36) hours. Considering all sessions, PaO(2)/FiO(2) increased (180 [148–210] vs 107 [90–129] mmHg, p < 0.001) and Aa-gradient decreased (127 [92–176] vs 275 [211–334] mmHg, p < 0.001) with proning. C(RS) (36.2 [30.0–41.8] vs 32.2 [27.5–40.9] ml/cmH(2)O, p = 0.003), VR (2.4 [2.0–2.9] vs 2.3 [1.9–2.8], p = 0.028) and V(D)/V(T) HB (0.72 [0.67–0.76] vs 0.71 [0.65–0.76], p = 0.022) slightly increased. Considering the first proning session, PaO(2)/FiO(2) increased (186 [165–215] vs 104 [94–126] mmHg, p < 0.001) and Aa-gradient decreased (121 [89–160] vs 276 [238–321] mmHg, p < 0.001), while C(RS), VR and V(D)/V(T) HB were unchanged. Similar variations were observed during the subsequent proning sessions. Among the patients who experienced treatment failure (defined as ICU death or need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), fewer expressed a positive response in terms of oxygenation (defined as increase of more than 20% in PaO(2)/FiO(2)) to the first proning (67 vs 97%, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Proning in COVID-19 ARDS intubated patients led to an increase in PaO(2)/FiO(2) and a decrease in Aa-gradient if we consider all the sessions together, the first one or the 4 subsequent sessions independently. When considering all sessions, C(RS) increased and VR and V(D)/V(T) HB only slightly increased. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-022-02247-8.