Abstract
Background Benefits of the prone position in ARDS are well established, and the evidence of its benefits for the COVID-19 patients are growing. However, the clinical utilization of such a maneuver is less established. We attempted to analyze the clinician’s utilization and attitude of the prone position and what is the main drive for its usage. Methods An international survey of eight questions. The questionnaire was anonymous and included the country of practice, percentage of patients with COVID-19 they have placed in the prone position while undergoing mechanical ventilation, most important factor that determined the need for the prone position (SpO2, PaO2:FiO2, FIO2, PEEP), duration of prone position in hours/day, use of neuro-muscular blocking agents, body position (flat, trendelenburg, reverse trendelenburg), the use of a specific protocol for the prone position, if they believe that prone position is beneficial, and if their practice will change or not. The survey was active for five months. Statistical analysis included frequencies of each response, as well as subgroup analyses designed to identify potential correlates of longer or shorter proning durations. The questionnaire assessed clinicians optimism regarding the continuing use of proning in the future, and how different cutoffs for proning initiation may be associated with attitudes towards proning. Associations between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are expressed in Means ± Standard Deviation (SD) Results 294 questionnaires were collected from 35 countries with 78% of responders from the USA. Median duration of proning was 14.8 ± 2.8 hours per day. 74% of clinicians utilized an established protocol for proning their patients. The decision to initiate proning was non-significant and split between the use of oxygen saturation SpO2 (30%) mean 92.44 ± 5.61, PaO2:FiO2 ratio (28%) mean 188.44 ± 57.36, FiO2 mean 78.6 ± 15.65, PEEP mean 12.96 ± 4.66, or immediate prone positioning following intubation (22%). 41.2% of surveyed utilize the prone position in 25-50%, average percent patients proned calculated at 7.1%. Estimated 77% of respondents reported prone positioning to be helpful in 50% or less of cases. 91% of responders used NMB either always or frequently, and there was statistical significance between the use of NMB and perceived benefits of proning (P < 0.001). 74% of those surveyed use a protocol for proning, the use of protocol and the perceived benefits of proning was statistically significant (P <0.001). Conclusion There are few agreements between clinicians on the duration of the proning sessions and use of NMB and using a protocol for proning. There was no agreement on the trigger of the prone position or the belief of its usefulness. This ambiguity should trigger an evidence-based ARDS management using the prone position in COVID-19 patients.