• Esra Ozayar, Ozlem Ozbek, Adem Selvi, Adil Ozturk, and Ozge Gursozlu.
• Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department, Ankara City Hospital, Health Sciences University, Bilkent Blvd. No:1, 66800, Ankara/Çankaya, Turkey. esra.ozayar@gmail.com.
• Ir J Med Sci. 2023 Jun 1; 192 (3): 132113251321-1325.

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and complications of three consecutive prone positions (PP) in COVID-19 ICU.Materials And MethodPatients with ARDS and placed in PP for 3 times (PP1, PP2, PP3) consecutively were included. Arterial blood gases (ABG), partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratios, partial pressure of carbondioxide (PaCO2), PEEP, and FiO2 were recorded before (bPP), during (dPP), and after (aPP) every prone positioning. Eye, skin, nerve, and tube complications related to PP were collected.ResultsIn all positions, PaO2 value during PP was significantly higher than PaO2 before and after prone position (p = 0.001). PaO2 values were similar in all (PP1, PP2, PP3) bPP arterial blood gases. We found difference in PaO2 values during prone position between the first (PP1) and second proning (PP2). When each prone was evaluated within itself, PaO2/FiO2 increases after proning compared to before proning. PaO2/FiO2 during PP were higher compared to before proning ones. PaO2/FiO2 during PP1 was significantly higher compared to during PP3 (p = 0.005). In PP3, PEEP values bPP, dPP, and aPP were significantly higher than PEEP values after the second prone (p = 0.02, p = 0.001, p = 0.01). In the third prone, PaCO2 levels were higher than in PP1 and PP2. There were eye complications in 13, tube-related complications in 10, skin complications in 30, and nerve damage in 1 patient.ConclusionWe believe that a more careful decision should be made after the second prone position in patients who have to be placed in sequential prone position.© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.

11 keywords...

hide…