Evidence Hub

Impact of awake prone positioning duration on intubation or mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Qin Sun, Rui Zhang, Junyi Zhang, Jianfeng Xie, Ying-Zi Huang, Yi Yang, Hai-Bo Qiu, Ling Liu et al.

Annals of Intensive Care, 2025

409 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Compared with shorter awake prone positioning (APP), prolonged APP (≥ 12 h daily) reduces the intubation rate in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). However, the optimal APP duration is uncertain. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to explore whether a longer APP duration is associated with improved outcomes and to identify the optimal duration of APP. Data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial involving nonintubated COVID-19 patients with AHRF were analyzed. Daily APP duration over 7 days after randomization was recorded as the primary exposure in present study. The primary outcome was the time from randomization to APP failure, which was defined as a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 28 days. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was employed to elucidate the associations, and the daily duration of APP was treated as time dependent. A total of 409 patients were randomized in the original trial, and 408 were enrolled in this analysis. Among these patients, 105 (25.7%) experienced APP failure. A longer daily APP duration was associated with a lower risk of APP failure, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–0.98), and the association was significant only during the first three days after randomization. There was a nonlinear relationship between the daily APP duration and the risk of APP failure (P = 0.015 for nonlinearity). Compared with patients whose APP duration ranged…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 409 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free