Background: The prone position (PP) is increasingly used in mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. However, studies investigating the influence of the PP are currently lacking in these patients. This is the first study to investigate the influence of the PP on the oxygenation and decarboxylation in COVID-19 patients. Methods: A prospective bicentric study design was used, and in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, PP was indicated from a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (P_aO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (F_IO2) ratio of <200. Patients were left prone for 16 h each. Pressure levels, F_IO2, were adjusted to ensure a P_aO2 greater than 60 mmHg. Blood gas analyses were performed before (baseline 0.5 h), during (1/2/5.5/9.5/13 h), and after being in the PP (1 h), the circulatory/ventilation parameters were continuously monitored, and lung compliance (LC) was roughly calculated. Responders were defined compared to the baseline value (P_aO2/F_IO2 ratio increase of ≥15%; partial pressure of carbon dioxide (P_aCO2) decrease of ≥2%). Results: 13 patients were included and 36 PP sessions were conducted. Overall, P_aO2/F_IO2 increased significantly in the PP (p < 0.001). Most P_aO2/F_IO2 responders (29/36 PP sessions, 77%) were identified 9.5 h after turning prone (14% slow responders), while most P_aCO2 responders (15/36 PP sessions, 42%) were identified 13 h after turning prone. A subgroup of patients (interval intubation to PP ≥3 days) showed less P_aO2/F_IO2 responders (16% vs. 77%). An increase in P_aCO2 and minute ventilation in the PP showed a significant negative correlation (p < 0.001). LC (median before the PP = 38 mL/cm H₂O; two patients with LC >80 mL/cm H₂O) showed a significant positive correlation with the 28 day survival of patients (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The PP significantly improves oxygenation in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The data suggest that they also benefit most from an early PP. A decrease in minute ventilation may result in fewer P_aCO2 responders. LC may be a predictive outcome parameter in COVID-19 patients. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices (tMCS) are increasingly being used in patients with infarct-associated cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Evidence on patient selection, complications and long-term outcomes is lacking. We aim to investigate differences in clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes between patients receiving no tMCS or either intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) or Impella^® for AMICS, with a particular focus on long-term outcomes. Methods: Using health claim data from AOK—Die Gesundheitskasse (local health care funds), we retrospectively analysed complications and outcomes of all insured patients with AMICS between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017. Results: A total of 39,864 patients were included (IABP 5451; Impella 776; V-A ECMO 833; no tMCS 32,804). In-hospital complications, including renal failure requiring dialysis (50.3% V-A ECMO vs. 30.5% Impella vs. 29.2 IABP vs. 12.1% no tMCS), major bleeding (38.1% vs. 20.9% vs. 18.0% vs. 9.3%) and sepsis (22.5% vs. 15.9% vs. 13.9% vs. 9.3%) were more common in V-A ECMO patients. In a multivariate analysis, the use of both V-A ECMO (HR 1.57, p < 0.001) and Impella (HR 1.25, p < 0.001) were independently associated with long-term mortality, whereas use of IABP was not (HR 0.89, p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier estimates showed better survival for patients on IABP compared with Impella, V-A ECMO and no-tMCS. Short- and long-term mortality was high across all groups. Conclusions: Our data show noticeably more in-hospital complications in patients on tMCS and higher mortality with V-A ECMO and Impella. The use of both devices is an independent risk factor for mortality, whereas the use of IABP is associated with a survival benefit.

Der „physiologisch schwierige Atemweg“ bezieht sich auf systemische intubationsassoziierte Probleme, die trotz technisch erfolgreicher Atemwegssicherung zu Komplikationen führen können. Diese SOP fokussiert auf patienten- und behandlungsbezogene Risiken, um durch gezielte Vorbereitung und Maßnahmen Komplikationen frühzeitig zu erkennen, zu minimieren und die Sicherheit sowie den Erfolg der Atemwegssicherung zu erhöhen. Article published online: 08 April 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Der „physiologisch schwierige Atemweg“ bezieht sich auf systemische intubationsassoziierte Probleme, die trotz technisch erfolgreicher Atemwegssicherung zu Komplikationen führen können. Diese SOP fokussiert auf patienten- und behandlungsbezogene Risiken, um durch gezielte Vorbereitung und Maßnahmen Komplikationen frühzeitig zu erkennen, zu minimieren und die Sicherheit sowie den Erfolg der Atemwegssicherung zu erhöhen. Article published online: 10 October 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany