Prone Positioning During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Severe ARDS: The PRONECMO Randomized Clinical Trial | Cardiology | JAMA


Key Points

Question 
Prone positioning may improve the outcome of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but is prone position superior to supine position among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) for severe ARDS?

Findings 
In this randomized clinical trial that included 170 patients primarily with COVID-19 who were undergoing VV-ECMO, successful ECMO weaning at day 60 occurred in 38 patients (44%) in the prone ECMO group compared with 37 patients (44%) in the supine ECMO group, a nonsignificant difference (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.11).

Meaning 
Among patients with severe ARDS undergoing VV-ECMO, prone positioning did not reduce time to successful ECMO weaning compared with supine position.

Importance 
Prone positioning may improve outcomes in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS who are undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) compared with supine positioning.

Objective 
To test whether prone positioning vs supine positioning decreases the time to successful ECMO weaning in patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO.

Design, Setting, and Participants 
Randomized clinical trial of patients with severe ARDS undergoing VV-ECMO for less than 48 hours at 14 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between March 3, 2021, and December 7, 2021.

Interventions 
Patients were randomized 1:1 to prone positioning (at least 4 sessions of 16 hours) (n = 86) or to supine positioning (n = 84).

Main Outcomes and Measures 
The primary outcome was time to successful ECMO weaning within 60 days following randomization. Secondary outcomes included ECMO and mechanical ventilation–free days, ICU and hospital length of stay, skin pressure injury, serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up.

Results 
Among 170 randomized patients (median age, 51 [IQR, 43-59] years; n = 60 women [35%]), median respiratory system compliance was 15.0 (IQR, 10.7-20.6) mL/cm H2O; 159 patients (94%) had COVID-19–related ARDS; and 164 (96%) were in prone position before ECMO initiation. Within 60 days of enrollment, 38 of 86 patients (44%) had successful ECMO weaning in the prone ECMO group compared with 37 of 84 (44%) in the supine ECMO group (risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, −14.9% to 15.2%]; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.75]; P = .64). Within 90 days, no significant difference was observed in ECMO duration (28 vs 32 days; difference, −4.9 [95% CI, −11.2 to 1.5] days; P = .13), ICU length of stay, or 90-day mortality (51% vs 48%; risk difference, 2.4% [95% CI, −13.9% to 18.6%]; P = .62). No serious adverse events were reported during the prone position procedure.

Conclusions and Relevance 
Among patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO, prone positioning compared with supine positioning did not significantly reduce time to successful weaning of ECMO.

Trial Registration 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04607551

Among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prone ventilation provided for at least 16 hours per day significantly reduced 90-day mortality.1 Prone position promotes better overall ventilation/perfusion matching through a more homogeneous distribution of gas-tissue ratios along the dependent-nondependent axis in addition to decreased levels of lung stress and strain.2-4 There is reduced overdistension in nondependent lung regions and less cyclical airspace opening and closing in dependent regions during prone position, perhaps reducing ventilator-induced lung injury.5,6 Prone positioning may also improve hemodynamics.7 Considering these benefits, the use of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has increased in many ECMO centers, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.8 However, evidence supporting prone positioning during ECMO remains low, mostly from retrospective observational studies and meta-analyses suggesting accelerated ECMO weaning and lower mortality when prone positioning was applied during ECMO.9-12

To address this knowledge gap, the PRONECMO multicenter randomized clinical trial was designed to determine the effect of early prone positioning during VV-ECMO vs supine positioning on time to successful ECMO weaning in patients with severe ARDS.

The PRONECMO trial was an investigator-initiated, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 sites in France (eTable 1 in Supplement 1). Eligible intensive care units (ICUs) were medical and surgical centers in France that had clinicians who were experienced in treating adult patients undergoing VV-ECMO and had the capability to perform prone positioning during ECMO. The trial protocol (Supplement 2) was designed by the trial scientific committee and approved by an institutional review board (Comite de Protection des Personnes Ouest II–Angers 2020/59). The study followed CONSORT reporting guidelines.13 The trial was financed by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, which coordinated operational processes, conducted data monitoring and quality checks, and performed statistical analyses. Patient safety was regularly monitored by an independent data and safety monitoring board, who analyzed adverse events in a blinded manner.

The decision to initiate VV-ECMO was at the discretion of the treating team, although the ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS (EOLIA) trial inclusion criteria were recommended.14 Adult patients were enrolled if they were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation and were supported by VV-ECMO for less than 48 hours. Exclusion criteria were being younger than 18 years or older than 75 years, pregnancy and breastfeeding, initiation of VV-ECMO more than 48 hours prior, end-stage chronic lung disease, ARDS secondary to abdominal surgery, a moribund condition or a Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) value of more than 90 (on a scale from 0 to 163, with higher scores indicating greater severity of illness15) on the day of randomization, irreversible ARDS with no expectation of lung function recovery, lung transplant, and contraindications for prone positioning (eTable 2 in Supplement 1). As patients were unable to give written consent at inclusion, written informed consent was obtained from a close relative or surrogate. According to the specifications of emergency consent, randomization without close relative or surrogate consent could be performed. The family member or close relative/legal representative and the patient were informed of the inclusion as soon as possible and consented in writing to their continuation in the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either prone positioning while undergoing ECMO (prone ECMO group) or supine positioning while undergoing ECMO (supine ECMO group) in permuted blocks of size 4 or 6. Randomization was performed through a secure web-based system using the minimization method: the first 20 patients were randomly assigned (1:1). The remaining patients had an 80% probability of being assigned to the group that minimizes imbalances on the following characteristics: center, prone positioning before ECMO (yes vs no), respiratory system compliance (≤20 or >20 mL/cm H20) at randomization, and COVID-19 status (positive vs negative).

For patients assigned to the prone ECMO group, the proning procedure was applied according to a written protocol (see video at https://we.tl/t-1K5mLgITRi and eTable 3 in Supplement 1). At least 4 prone position sessions of 16 hours were performed during the first 4 days unless a patient met the following predefined criteria for early stopping of the prone intervention: oxygenation and respiratory system compliance improvement leading to achievement of ECMO weaning criteria, Pao2 deterioration after 16 hours of prone positioning by more than 20% relative to supine, or severe proning-related complications leading to immediate interruption of the session (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). Use of continuous neuromuscular blockade during prone positioning or prone positioning while undergoing ECMO after 4 sessions was recommended but left to the physician’s discretion. For patients assigned to the supine ECMO group, prone positioning while undergoing ECMO was not allowed before day 60. Physicians could place a patient in prone position as rescue therapy in cases of refractory hypoxemia during ECMO (eTable 3 in Supplement 1).

In both groups, patients received similar sedation, anticoagulation, ECMO, and circuit management. Ultraprotective lung ventilation targeting a low tidal volume (<4 mL/kg), a positive end-expiratory pressure greater than 10 cm H20, low plateau pressure (≤24 cm H2O), and low respiratory rate (≤20/min) was applied in both groups and maintained during prone position sessions (eTable 4 in Supplement 1). Protocolized management was applied to both groups regarding weaning from ECMO. The protocol was undertaken daily as soon as improvement was noted in respiratory system compliance, arterial oxygenation, or chest radiography. Successful weaning criteria allowing ECMO withdrawal are detailed in eTable 5 in Supplement 1.14

Patients’ characteristics, severity of illness, pre-ECMO arterial blood gas measures, mechanical ventilation settings (see Box for definitions of mechanical ventilation– and ECMO-related measures), and adjunctive therapies were documented at enrollment. Intervention and cointervention data during ICU stay were recorded up to 60 days after randomization, including mechanical ventilation settings, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and vasopressor administration. Data were specifically documented before and after 16 hours of prone positioning during the first 4 days of ECMO. Data were collected on the number of patients for whom prone positioning was prematurely stopped.

Box Section Ref ID

Box.

Definitions of Mechanical Ventilation and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Measures

Mechanical Ventilation
  • Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP): Measured in centimeters of H2O, PEEP is the positive pressure that remains in the airways at the end of the respiratory cycle (end of exhalation) that is greater than the atmospheric pressure in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

  • Tidal volume: Measured in milliliters per kilogram of predicted body weight, tidal volume is the amount of air that moves in or out of the lungs with each respiratory cycle.

  • Driving pressure: Measured in centimeters of H2O, driving pressure is plateau airway pressure minus PEEP. It can also be expressed as the ratio of tidal volume to respiratory system compliance, indicating the decreased functional size of the lung.

  • Respiratory rate: Measured in breaths per minute, respiratory rate is the rate at which breathing occurs; it can be set and controlled by the ventilator.

  • Respiratory system compliance: Measured in millimeters per centimeter of H2O, respiratory system compliance measures lung ability to expand and accommodate changes in volume (ie, elasticity) in response to changes in pressure. It is expressed as tidal volume/(plateau pressure − PEEP).

ECMO Configuration/Settings
  • Femorojugular: Configuration of the venovenous ECMO setting. The drainage cannula is inserted into the femoral vein and the return cannula into the internal jugular vein.

  • ECMO flow: Measured in liters per minute, ECMO flow is the amount of blood that is pumped continuously out of the body and sent through a membrane that adds oxygen and removes carbon dioxide.

  • Fmo2: Measured in percentage, Fmo2 is the fraction of oxygen of the gas flowing through the membrane oxygenator.

  • Sweep gas flow: Measured in liters per minute, sweep gas flow is gas flow through the membrane oxygenator. An increase in sweep gas flow increases CO2 elimination.

The primary outcome was time to successful ECMO weaning within 60 days following randomization. ECMO weaning (ie, ECMO separation) was considered successful only if a patient survived without ECMO or lung transplant for 30 days after ECMO discontinuation. Two competing events were therefore considered: (1) weaning failure, defined as need for a second ECMO run or lung transplant or death within 30 days after ECMO separation, and (2) death while undergoing ECMO. Patients still alive while undergoing ECMO 60 days after randomization without any competing events were censored. In patients for whom several types of events (successful weaning, weaning failure, death) occurred during follow-up, only the first event was considered in the analysis of the primary outcome. Thus, the qualification for successful ECMO weaning required 30 days of follow-up after ECMO discontinuation (ie, up to a maximum of 90 days after randomization if ECMO was removed on day 60).

The predefined secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up, time to achieve a respiratory system compliance greater than 30 mL/cm H2O within 7 days, number of days alive without cardiovascular or kidney failure (defined by a SOFA cardiovascular and kidney score of 0-1), incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, ECMO- and mechanical ventilation–free days (death was considered 0 days), ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and need for venoarterial ECMO at 60-day and 90-day follow-up.

Predefined adverse events included skin pressure injuries evaluated daily during the first 7 days after randomization with the Revised Pressure Injury Staging System.16 This scale grades pressure ulcers in 12 sections of the body from a grade 1 pressure injury (ie, soft tissue injury without ulceration) to a grade 4 pressure injury (ie, full-thickness skin loss and tissue loss). The score ranges from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating more severe skin pressure injuries. Predefined serious adverse events (unintentional decannulation, nonscheduled extubation during the procedure, hemoptysis, cardiac arrest) were also assessed at 60-day follow-up.

Based on data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in patients with severe ARDS undergoing VV-ECMO in France,14 we estimated that the cumulative incidence of successful ECMO weaning in the control group would be at least 60% in the presence of competing causes (death). According to Latouche et al,17 170 patients in total (85 per group) were required to have 80% power to detect a subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.75 with an α = .05 (bilateral formulation).

Baseline characteristics are reported as counts with percentages for categorical variables and as means with SDs or medians with IQRs for continuous variables. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted according to as-randomized principles. The primary analysis was adjusted for minimization stratification factors. The primary end point was time to successful ECMO weaning within the 60 days following randomization, in the presence of the competing risks of death and weaning failure. The cumulative incidence curves for these 3 competing events were drawn for each randomization group. The cumulative incidence of successful ECMO weaning was compared between groups using the Gray test. The subdistribution hazard ratios were estimated (with their 95% CIs) for the 3 events using a Fine and Gray competing risk regression. The estimated subdistribution hazard ratio associated with successful weaning represents an estimation of the total effect of the randomized intervention for the primary event of interest. We conducted analyses of the primary end point in predefined and post hoc subgroups of interest. We postulated that patients with respiratory system compliance of less than or equal to 20 mL/cm H2O or with a higher body mass index (ie, exceeding the median body mass index of our study population) would have been more likely to experience a successful ECMO weaning with prone positioning. A sensitivity analysis was also performed by estimating cause-specific hazard ratios and their 95% CIs with a cause-specific Cox regression model. The cause-specific hazard ratio associated with successful weaning represents an estimation of the direct effect of the randomized intervention on the primary event of interest in a counterfactual world in which competing events are eliminated.

Categorical outcomes were compared with the χ2 test or Fisher exact test and continuous outcomes with the t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test, as appropriate. Censored outcomes were described over time using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. All analyses were conducted at a 2-sided α = .05 and were performed using R software, version 4.1.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

From March 3, 2021, to December 7, 2021, 250 patients undergoing ECMO for severe ARDS were assessed for eligibility, of whom 170 were randomized (86 randomized to prone positioning and 84 to supine positioning) (Figure 1) and completed follow-up. As shown in Table 1, the median age was 51 (IQR, 43-59) years and 60 patients (35%) were women. The leading cause of ARDS was COVID-19 pneumonia (n = 159 [94%]). The pre-ECMO median ratio of Pao2 to fraction of inspired oxygen was 66 mm Hg (IQR, 56-80 mm Hg), and patients underwent cannulation after a median of 4 days (IQR, 1-6 days) after intubation. Prior to the initiation of ECMO, 85 (99% in the prone ECMO group) and 79 (94% in the supine ECMO group) of the patients had been in prone position, respectively. The median SOFA score was 9 (IQR, 8-13), the median tidal volume during ECMO was 3.0 (IQR, 2.0-4.3) mL/kg of predicted body weight, and the median respiratory system compliance was 14.0 (IQR, 10.0-23.8) mL/cm H2O and 15.0 (IQR, 11.7-19.4) mL/cm H2O in the prone and supine ECMO groups, respectively.

All patients in the interventional group were placed in prone position immediately after randomization, and 69 patients (80%) received at least 4 prone position sessions (median, 4 [IQR, 4-5] sessions). In the prone ECMO group, 17 patients (19.8%) discontinued the prone intervention before achievement of 4 prone position sessions (eTable 7 in Supplement 1), most often due to improvement in oxygenation and respiratory system compliance. No significant differences in respiratory system compliance were present between groups during the first 7 days of ECMO (P = .08) (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Similarly, respiratory system compliance, Pao2, and Paco2 did not significantly change before and after the first prone position session (eTable 8 in Supplement 1). Among patients randomized to the supine ECMO group, 2 (2.4%) were placed in prone position for refractory hypoxemia while undergoing ECMO (eTable 3 in Supplement 1).

Successful ECMO weaning within 60 days of randomization occurred in 38 of 86 patients (44.2%) and 37 of 84 patients (44.0%) in the prone and supine ECMO groups, respectively (risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, −14.9% to 15.2%]; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.75]; P = .64) (Table 2 and Figure 2). ECMO weaning failure and death, the 2 other competing components of the primary outcome, were not significantly different between groups (Table 2). Among patients with ECMO weaning failure, 10 were weaned from ECMO but died (8 patients in the prone ECMO group; 2 patients in the supine ECMO group), and 2 patients needed a second ECMO run within 30 days after ECMO separation. None had a lung transplant (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1). At day 60, 7 patients in the prone ECMO group and 13 patients in the supine ECMO group were still undergoing ECMO and were censored. Results of the cause-specific analysis were similar (eTable 9 in Supplement 1).

No significant differences were present in any of the prespecified secondary end points (Table 2). At day 90, 44 patients (51%) in the prone ECMO group and 40 (48%) in the supine ECMO group had died (absolute risk difference, 2.4% [95% CI, −13.9% to 18.6%]; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.72-1.72]; P = .62) (eFigure 3 in Supplement 1). ECMO and mechanical ventilation durations, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay were not significantly different between groups (eFigures 4-7 in Supplement 1). By 60 days, 73 of 86 patients (85%) had at least 1 ventilator-associated episode of pneumonia in the prone ECMO group compared with 75 of 84 patients (89%) in the supine ECMO group (absolute risk difference, −4.4% [95% CI, −15.6% to 6.8%]; relative risk, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.85-1.07]; P = .49). Incomplete data on the occurrence of acute core pulmonale and involved lung quadrants on chest radiography limited those analyses. Two patients were switched from VV-ECMO to venoarterial ECMO.

The rate of cardiac arrest was significantly greater in patients in the supine ECMO group compared with those in the prone ECMO group (11 [11.1%] vs 3 [3.5%]; absolute risk difference, −9.6% [95% CI, −19.0% to −0.2%]; relative risk, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.08-0.92]; P = .05). The rates of bleeding events leading to packed red blood cell transfusion and hemorrhagic stroke were similar in the 2 groups. No unintentional ECMO decannulation, nonscheduled extubation, or severe hemoptysis occurred during prone positioning procedures. The Revised Pressure Ulcer Injury Staging System score was not significantly higher in the prone ECMO group (median, 8 [IQR, 4-11] vs 6 [IQR, 2-10]; relative risk difference, 2% [95% CI, −1% to 6%]; P = .14) (Table 2).

There were no significant treatment effect differences in prespecified subgroups (Figure 3). The low rates of non-COVID ARDS (6.5%) and patients not placed in prone position before ECMO (3.6%) precluded performing prespecified analyses in these subgroups. A post hoc subgroup analysis by median body mass index and center ECMO experience (defined as more than 30 patients included in the study) did not show statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect between the 2 study groups.

In this randomized clinical trial among patients with severe ARDS receiving VV-ECMO, the early application of prone position during ECMO was not associated with a shorter time to successful ECMO weaning. Secondary outcomes including survival at days 60 and 90, ECMO- and mechanical ventilation–free days, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were not different between groups.

Recent retrospective cohort studies of patients receiving VV-ECMO showed that prone positioning during ECMO was significantly associated with a greater probability of being alive and weaned from ECMO.9,10 In recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 1836 patients from 13 observational studies, prone positioning during ECMO was associated with a significant improvement in ventilator-free days and ICU survival (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.41), present in both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO.18 Indeed, a shorter duration of ECMO support may decrease ECMO-related complications such as severe hemorrhage,19,20 neurological events,21 nosocomial infections,22 and decreased resource utilization. As such, the primary outcome in the current trial was pragmatic and combined both mortality at day 60 alone and ECMO weaning status (ie, success or failure).

Despite promising findings in observational studies, prone positioning of patients undergoing ECMO failed to reduce ECMO duration or mortality in this randomized trial. Several factors may explain this finding. First, the majority of enrolled patients were placed in prone position before ECMO, compared with widely variable proportions of patients in previous cohorts.10,11,18,23,24 Second, the majority of patients had COVID-19–related ARDS, perhaps with a greater severity of pulmonary injury. Prior international cohorts25-27 suggested that patients with COVID-19 rescued by ECMO had longer ECMO runs and ICU lengths of stay than that reported in the EOLIA trial14 or other large, retrospective series of ECMO for non–COVID-19–related ARDS.28-30 Thus, it remains uncertain whether the current trial findings are generalizable to patients with severe non–COVID-19–related ARDS.

The neutral result also raises the prospect that the etiology or severity of ARDS and subsequent biology may exhibit differential responses to prone positioning. The 60-day mortality rate of 44% was greater than the rates reported in cohorts of patients with COVID-19 undergoing ECMO treated in experienced ECMO centers in Europe.8 The COVID-19 variant may also contribute to prone positioning response, as less favorable pandemic outcomes were observed in late 20208,27,31 and the Delta variant was predominant in France during part of the trial.8 This contrasts with early reports of prone positioning benefit in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO during predominance of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 strain.12,14,18,24-26

This study has several limitations. First, the sample size may have been insufficient to detect a clinically meaningful treatment effect. However, the rate of use of ECMO in patients with ARDS is still low—only 7% of patients with severe ARDS included in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE), which was performed before the COVID-19 pandemic.32 This rate may have been even lower if the EOLIA criteria for ECMO initiation had been strictly applied,14 especially with the systematic use of prone positioning before considering ECMO. Second, 69 of 170 patients were enrolled from a single very experienced center, which could limit the generalizability of our results. However, it should also be noted that 170 of 250 patients screened during the study period were included in the trial, suggesting that our inclusion criteria are broadly applicable to this patient population. Third, the trial was unblinded due to the nature of the intervention, and this design may introduce bias.

Among patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO, prone positioning during ECMO did not significantly reduce time to successful weaning of ECMO.

Corresponding Author: Matthieu Schmidt, MD, Service de Medecine Intensive Reanimation, iCAN, Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75651 Paris CEDEX 13, France (matthieu.schmidt@aphp.fr).

Accepted for Publication: November 7, 2023.

Published Online: December 1, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.24491

Author Contributions: Drs Schmidt, Hajage, and Combes had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Schmidt, Hajage, Lebreton, Combes.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Schmidt, Hajage, Dres, Guervilly, Richard, Sonneville, Winiszewski, Muller, Beduneau, Mercier, Roze, Lesouhaitier, Terzi, Thille, Laurent, Kimmoun, Combes.

Drafting of the manuscript: Schmidt, Laurent, Combes.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Schmidt, Hajage, Lebreton, Dres, Guervilly, Richard, Sonneville, Winiszewski, Muller, Beduneau, Mercier, Roze, Lesouhaitier, Terzi, Thille, Kimmoun, Combes.

Statistical analysis: Hajage, Laurent, Combes.

Obtained funding: Schmidt, Hajage, Combes.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Schmidt, Hajage, Sonneville, Muller, Terzi, Combes.

Supervision: Schmidt, Lebreton, Dres, Muller, Lesouhaitier, Combes.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Schmidt reported receipt of lecture fees from Getinge, Dräger, Baxter, and Fresenius Medical Care. Dr Dres reported receipt of personal fees from Lungpacer Medical Inc. Dr Guervilly reported receipt of personal fees from Xenios FMC. Dr Sonneville reported receipt of grants from the French Ministry of Health and LFB. Dr Thille reported receipt of grants from the French Ministry of Health and receipt of personal fees (payment for lectures and travel/accommodation to attend scientific meetings) and nonfinancial support from Fisher & Paykel and GE Healthcare. Dr Combes reported receipt of grants from Getinge and personal fees from Getinge, Baxter, and Xenios. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant PHRC APHP-180607 from the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique–PHRC 2018 (French Ministry of Health).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The study funder provided support for research coordination, statistical support, and monitoring but had no role in the design of the study; data collection, study management, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Group Information: The PRONECMO Investigators are listed in Supplement 3.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.

Additional Contributions: We thank all those who worked on or participated to make the PRONECMO trial a success, including the patients enrolled in the trial, all site staff who helped enroll participants, and all health care professionals who cared for the patients throughout the protocol duration. In particular, we thank Armand Mekontso Dessap, MD, PhD (Department of Intensive Care, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Creteil, France), Fabio Taccone, MD, PhD (Department of Intensive Care, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium), Audrey De-Jong, MD, PhD (Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Regional University Hospital of Montpellier, St-Eloi Hospital, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France), and Daniel Mathieu, MD, PhD (CHU Lille, Pôle de Médecine Intensive–Réanimation, Hôpital Roger Salengro, Lille, France) for joining the data and safety monitoring board. We thank Jessica Palmyre, MSc, and Shirmone Botha, MSc (Unité de Recherche Clinique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France) for their help with study coordination and data collection. These contributors were not compensated beyond their regular salaries.

3.

Gattinoni
 L, Pesenti
 A, Carlesso
 E.  Body position changes redistribute lung computed-tomographic density in patients with acute respiratory failure: impact and clinical fallout through the following 20 years.   Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(11):1909-1915. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-3066-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.

Mure
 M, Domino
 KB, Lindahl
 SG, Hlastala
 MP, Altemeier
 WA, Glenny
 RW.  Regional ventilation-perfusion distribution is more uniform in the prone position.   J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(3):1076-1083. doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.88.3.1076PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.

Broccard
 AF, Shapiro
 RS, Schmitz
 LL, Ravenscraft
 SA, Marini
 JJ.  Influence of prone position on the extent and distribution of lung injury in a high tidal volume oleic acid model of acute respiratory distress syndrome.   Crit Care Med. 1997;25(1):16-27. doi:10.1097/00003246-199701000-00007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.

Jozwiak
 M, Teboul
 JL, Anguel
 N,
 et al.  Beneficial hemodynamic effects of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.   Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(12):1428-1433. doi:10.1164/rccm.201303-0593OCPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.

Schmidt
 M, Hajage
 D, Landoll
 M,
 et al; ECMO-SURGES Investigators.  Comparative outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 delivered in experienced European centres during successive SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks (ECMO-SURGES): an international, multicentre, retrospective cohort study.   Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(2):163-175. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00438-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.

Guervilly
 C, Prud’homme
 E, Pauly
 V,
 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):1040-1042. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05570-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.

Giani
 M, Rezoagli
 E, Guervilly
 C,
 et al; European Prone Positioning During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (EuroPronECMO) Investigators.  Timing of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome.   Crit Care Med. 2023;51(1):25-35. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005705PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.

Zaaqoq
 AM, Barnett
 AG, Griffee
 MJ,
 et al; COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium.  Beneficial effect of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019.   Crit Care Med. 2022;50(2):275-285. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.

Combes
 A, Hajage
 D, Capellier
 G,
 et al; EOLIA Trial Group, REVA, and ECMONet.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965-1975. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800385PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.

Edsberg
 LE, Black
 JM, Goldberg
 M, McNichol
 L, Moore
 L, Sieggreen
 M.  Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: Revised Pressure Injury Staging System.   J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2016;43(6):585-597. doi:10.1097/WON.0000000000000281PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.

Papazian
 L, Schmidt
 M, Hajage
 D,
 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):270-280. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06604-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.

Mansour
 A, Flecher
 E, Schmidt
 M,
 et al; ECMOSARS Investigators.  Bleeding and thrombotic events in patients with severe COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a nationwide cohort study.   Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(8):1039-1052. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06794-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.

Martucci
 G, Schmidt
 M, Agerstrand
 C,
 et al; International ECMO Network (ECMONet).  Transfusion practice in patients receiving VV ECMO (PROTECMO): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.   Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(3):245-255. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00353-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.

Giani
 M, Martucci
 G, Madotto
 F,
 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. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-625OCPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.

Massart
 N, Guervilly
 C, Mansour
 A,
 et al; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure and/or Heart Failure Related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (ECMOSARS) Investigators.  Impact of prone position in COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.   Crit Care Med. 2023;51(1):36-46. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005714PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.

Schmidt
 M, Hajage
 D, Lebreton
 G,
 et al; Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Reanimation et Soins Intensifs du Patient en Insuffisance Respiratoire Aigue (GRC-RESPIRE) Sorbonne Université; Paris-Sorbonne ECMO-COVID Investigators.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.   Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(11):1121-1131. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30328-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.

Barbaro
 RP, MacLaren
 G, Boonstra
 PS,
 et al; Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.   Lancet. 2020;396(10257):1071-1078. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.

Barbaro
 RP, MacLaren
 G, Boonstra
 PS,
 et al; Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.   Lancet. 2021;398(10307):1230-1238. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01960-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.

Davies
 A, Jones
 D, Bailey
 M,
 et al; Australia and New Zealand Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ANZ ECMO) Influenza Investigators.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A(H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome.   JAMA. 2009;302(17):1888-1895. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1535PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.

Pham
 T, Combes
 A, Rozé
 H,
 et al; REVA Research Network.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for pandemic influenza A(H1N1)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: a cohort study and propensity-matched analysis.   Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187(3):276-285. doi:10.1164/rccm.201205-0815OCPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.

Schmidt
 M, Pham
 T, Arcadipane
 A,
 et al.  Mechanical ventilation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: an international multicenter prospective cohort.   Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(8):1002-1012. doi:10.1164/rccm.201806-1094OCPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.

Riera
 J, Roncon-Albuquerque
 R
 Jr, Fuset
 MP, Alcántara
 S, Blanco-Schweizer
 P; ECMOVIBER Study Group.  Increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving extracorporeal respiratory support during the second wave of the pandemic.   Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(12):1490-1493. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06517-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.

Bellani
 G, Laffey
 JG, Pham
 T,
 et al; LUNG SAFE Investigators; ESICM Trials Group.  Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries.   JAMA. 2016;315(8):788-800. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0291PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref



Source link

Rate this post

Leave a Comment