Background: Prone position (PP) and the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) are both efficient in improving oxygenation and prognosis in patients with ARDS. The synergistic effect of PP combined with PEEP-induced LRM in patients with ARDS remains unclear. We aim to explore the effects of PP combined with PEEP-induced LRM on prognosis in patients with moderate to severe ARDS and the predicting role of lung recruitablity. Methods: Patients with moderate to severe ARDS were consecutively enrolled. The patients were prospectively assigned to either the intervention (PP with PEEP-induced LRM) or control groups (PP). The clinical outcomes, respiratory mechanics, and electric impedance tomography (EIT) monitoring results for the two groups were compared. Lung recruitablity (recruitment-to-inflation ratio: R/I) was measured during the PEEP-induced LRM procedure and was used for predicting the response to LRM. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the final analysis, among which 28 patients (48.2%) received PEEP-induced LRM combined with PP. PEEP-induced LRM enhanced the effect of PP by a significant improvement in oxygenation (∆PaO2/FiO2 75.8 mmHg vs. 4.75 mmHg, p < 0.001) and the compliance of respiratory system (∆Crs, 2 mL/cmH2O vs. −1 mL/cmH2O, p = 0.02) among ARDS patients. Based on the EIT measurement, PP combined with PEEP-induced LRM increased the ventilation distribution mainly in the dorsal region (5.0% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.015). The R/I ratio was measured in 28 subjects. The higher R/I ratio was related to greater oxygenation improvement after LRM (Pearson’s r = 0.4; p = 0.034). Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PEEP-induced LRM combined with PP can improve oxygenation and dorsal ventilation distribution. R/I can be useful to predict responses to LRM.
Background: Early reports highlighted unique features of COVID-19-associated ARDS. The combination of prone position (PP) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) has demonstrated efficacy in enhancing oxygenation and improving outcomes in patients with ARDS, but it remains unknown whether there is a difference between COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS. Method: This study is a secondary analysis of a previously conducted randomized controlled trial. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS were consecutively enrolled during the study period (June–December 2023). After initiation of PP, patients received a PEEP-induced LRM followed by 12 h of daily PP. The interventions were repeated at least three times over the subsequent 3 days. Clinical outcomes, respiratory mechanics, and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) results were evaluated. Results: Twenty-eight patients were included in the final analysis, half of whom were infected with COVID-19 (50%). The PEEP-induced LRM led to greater improvement in oxygenation among COVID-19 ARDS than non-COVID-19 ARDS (∆PaO2/FiO2 ratio 90.5 mmHg vs. 65.5 mmHg, p < 0.05). Based on EIT measurement, compared with the non-COVID-19 ARDS group, PEEP-induced LRM resulted in a greater increase in ventilation distribution, mainly in the dorsal regions of interest 4 (ROI 4) ventilation distribution (∆ROI4 4.5% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.01) and in dorsal regional ventilation (∆dorsal regional ventilation 10.0% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.04) in the COVID-19 ARDS group. Conclusions: Compared to typical ARDS, PEEP-induced LRM combined with PP may be more effective in enhancing oxygenation in COVID-19-related ARDS.