# Can prone positioning be a safe procedure in patients with acute brain injury and moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Pauline Bernon, Ségolène Mrozek, Guillaume Dupont, Frédéric Dailler, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, Baptiste Balança

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Pauline Bernon, Ségolène Mrozek, Guillaume Dupont, Frédéric Dailler, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz, et al. Can prone positioning be a safe procedure in patients with acute brain injury and moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome?. Critical Care, 2021, 25 (1), pp.30. 10.1186/s13054-020-03454-9. hal-03892018

HAL Id: hal-03892018

https://hal.science/hal-03892018v1

Submitted on 19 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH LETTER

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Can prone positioning be a safe procedure in patients with acute brain injury and moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Pauline Bernon¹, Ségolène Mrozek², Guillaume Dupont³,⁴, Frédéric Dailler¹, Anne-Claire Lukaszewicz¹,⁴
and Baptiste Balança¹,⁵*

Dear Editor,

One third of patients with severe brain injury develop lung complication that affect their prognosis. Prone positioning (PP) improves the outcome of patients with an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [1], but its effect on patients with acute brain injury is still debated. While it improves oxygenation, the impact of PP on intracranial pressure (ICP) remains controversial: PP has been reported not to affect ICP [2] and conversely to increase ICP, thereby worsening brain injuries [3]. There is currently no consensus on criteria to identify patients who will safely benefit from PP [4]. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PP in patients with acute brain injury and moderate-to-severe ARDS.

A retrospective analysis in three French intensive care units was conducted. A query on digital medical records identified 27 patients with an ICP, moderate-to-severe ARDS (according to the Berlin criteria) and PP. Data were collected before and during the first PP. Patients who had at least one ICP measurement > 25 mmHg were considered as having intracranial hypertension (IH) as it is

associated with a poor prognosis and used to consider a decompressive craniectomy [5].

A total of 10 (37.0%) patients had traumatic brain injuries, 11 (40.7%) subarachnoid haemorrhage, and 7 (25.9%) haemorrhagic stroke (Table1). During PP, the median [IQR] PaO₂/FiO₂ increased significantly from 100 [89–126] before to 216 [171–257] after PP (Wilcoxon test, *p* < 0.001) and remained significantly higher back to supine position (146 [122–186], Wilcoxon test, *p* = 0.002). IH occurred in 14 (51.8%) patients. They had a significantly higher median [IQR] ICP before PP onset (20 [13–26] mmHg) compared to patients without IH (11 [7–12] mmHg, Mann–Whitney test, *p* = 0.005) and a greater ICP increase during PP (+19 mmHg [13–20] vs +6 mmHg [3–8], Mann–Whitney test, *p* = 0.025), suggestive of a poorer brain compliance. PP was discontinued due to a sustain ICP increase in 5 patients (Fig. 1a).

All patients with an ICP > 17.5 mmHg prior to PP had an IH. Among patients with an ICP < 17.5 mmHg before PP onset, 13/18 (72%) had a safe PP session without IH. Rather than a single threshold of ICP changes, a grey zone approach was used to predict (i.e. sensitivity, Se > 90%) or exclude (i.e. specificity, Sp > 90%) a safe PP. The absence of ICP increase 1 h after the PP onset is suggestive of a preserved brain compliance and predicted a safe procedure (Sp = 93%), while an ICP elevation > 10 mmHg predicted the occurrence of IH (Sp = 93%). When the initial ICP was < 17.5 mmHg and did not increase 1 h after PP onset the manoeuvre took place without IH (Fig. 1b).

<footnote>*Correspondence: baptiste.balanca@gmail.com
¹ Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Pierre Wertheimer, Département d'anesthésie réanimation, Hôpital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, 59 Boulevard Pinel, 69500 Bron, Lyon, France
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Population characteristics</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total population (n = 27)</th><th>IH (n = 14)</th><th>No-IH (n = 13)</th><th>p*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age, median [IQR]</td><td>46 [36–55]</td><td>46 [36–50]</td><td>46 [37–56]</td><td>0.981</td></tr><tr><td>Female, n (%)</td><td>5 (18.5%)</td><td>2 (14.3%)</td><td>3 (23.1%)</td><td>0.648</td></tr><tr><td>BMI, median [IQR]</td><td>26 [23–31]</td><td>26 [22–30]</td><td>26 [23–33]</td><td>0.601</td></tr><tr><td>Traumatic brain injury, n (%)</td><td>10 (37.0%)</td><td>6 (42.9%)</td><td>4 (30.8%)</td><td>0.694</td></tr><tr><td>Subarachnoid haemorrhage, n (%)</td><td>11 (40.7%)</td><td>5 (35.7%)</td><td>6 (46.1%)</td><td>0.703</td></tr><tr><td>Haemorrhagic stroke, n (%)</td><td>7 (25.9%)</td><td>4 (28.6%)</td><td>3 (23.1%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Ischemic stroke, n (%)</td><td>1 (3.7%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>1 (7.7%)</td><td>0.481</td></tr><tr><td>Aspiration pneumonia, n (%)</td><td>13 (48.1%)</td><td>7 (50.0%)</td><td>6 (46.1%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Ventilator-associated pneumonia, n (%)</td><td>14 (51.8%)</td><td>7 (50.0%)</td><td>7 (53.8%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Severity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>SAPSII, median [IQR]</td><td>42 [34–53]</td><td>47 [41–55]</td><td>39 [30–46]</td><td>0.076</td></tr><tr><td>Glasgow Coma Scale at intubation, median [IQR]</td><td>6 [4–8]</td><td>6 [4–8]</td><td>6 [4–7]</td><td>0.769</td></tr><tr><td>First ICP measure, median [IQR]</td><td>22 [12–29]</td><td>24 [19–37]</td><td>16 [8–26]</td><td>0.274</td></tr><tr><td>IH treatment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cranial fracture, n (%)</td><td>3 (11.1%)</td><td>1 (7.1%)</td><td>2 (15.4%)</td><td>0.595</td></tr><tr><td>Hypothermia, n (%)</td><td>5 (18.5%)</td><td>3 (21.4%)</td><td>2 (15.4%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Osmotherapy, n (%)</td><td>11 (40.7%)</td><td>7 (50.0%)</td><td>4 (30.8%)</td><td>0.440</td></tr><tr><td>Thoracic administration, n (%)</td><td>10 (37.0%)</td><td>6 (42.9%)</td><td>4 (30.8%)</td><td>0.694</td></tr><tr><td>At least one of IH treatment, n (%)</td><td>14 (51.8%)</td><td>8 (57.1%)</td><td>6 (46.1%)</td><td>0.706</td></tr><tr><td>EVD, n (%)</td><td>14 (51.8%)</td><td>7 (50.0%)</td><td>7 (53.9%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>ARDS treatment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Neuromuscular blockade, n (%)</td><td>27 (100%)</td><td>14 (100%)</td><td>13 (100%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PP number, median [IQR]</td><td>1 [1–2]</td><td>1 [1–2]</td><td>1 [1–3]</td><td>0.295</td></tr><tr><td>Duration of PP (hours), median [IQR]</td><td>14 [9–19]</td><td>13 [8–17]</td><td>16 [11–20]</td><td>0.305</td></tr><tr><td>First PP delay, median days [IQR]</td><td>5 [4–7]</td><td>6 [5–7]</td><td>5 [4–6]</td><td>0.279</td></tr><tr><td>Tidal volume mL/kg, median [IQR]</td><td>6.8 [6.4–7.5]</td><td>6.7 [6.4–7.5]</td><td>6.9 [6.4–7.5]</td><td>0.843</td></tr><tr><td>Parameters before PP</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Initial ICP (mmHg), median [IQR]</td><td>13 [8–20]</td><td>20 [13–26]</td><td>11 [7–12]</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Initial CPP (mmHg), median [IQR]</td><td>75 [66–82]</td><td>67 [64–75]</td><td>79 [77–87]</td><td>0.041</td></tr><tr><td>Initial PEEP (cmH<sub>2</sub>O), median [IQR]</td><td>10 [9–12]</td><td>10 [9–11]</td><td>10 [9–12]</td><td>0.657</td></tr><tr><td>Initial FiO<sub>2</sub>, median (%) [IQR]</td><td>80 [60–89]</td><td>80 [71–100]</td><td>67 [60–81]</td><td>0.231</td></tr><tr><td>Initial plateau pressure (cmH<sub>2</sub>O), median [IQR]</td><td>23 [21–27]</td><td>23 [21–29]</td><td>23 [21–26]</td><td>0.689</td></tr><tr><td>Initial PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub>, median [IQR]</td><td>100 [89–126]</td><td>99 [88–113]</td><td>109 [93–142]</td><td>0.481</td></tr><tr><td>Initial PaO<sub>2</sub> (mmHg), median [IQR]</td><td>78 [74–95]</td><td>78 [74–90]</td><td>77 [74–99]</td><td>0.903</td></tr><tr><td>Initial PaCO<sub>2</sub> (mmHg), median [IQR]</td><td>43 [37–47]</td><td>43 [38–46]</td><td>44 [36–48]</td><td>0.884</td></tr><tr><td>Outcome</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mechanical ventilation duration (days), median [IQR]</td><td>23 [11–36]</td><td>22 [7–35]</td><td>23 [16–37]</td><td>0.395</td></tr><tr><td>Modified Rankin Scale at ICU discharge, median [IQR]</td><td>4 [4–5]</td><td>4 [4–6]</td><td>4 [4–5]</td><td>0.853</td></tr><tr><td>Mortality, n (%)</td><td>7 (25.9%)</td><td>4 (28.6%)</td><td>3 (23.1%)</td><td>1.000</td></tr></tbody></table>

BMI Body mass index, CPP cerebral perfusion pressure, EVD external ventricular drainage, FiO₂ inspiratory fraction of oxygen, ICP intracranial pressure, ICU intensive care unit, IH intracranial hypertension, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, PP prone positioning, SAPSII Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2

Brain oxygen partial pressure was available for 4 patients and rose from 20.5 [18.8–23.5] mmHg to 28 [22–31] mmHg during PP.

The main limitations of this study are due to its retrospective design. The modalities for performing manually

PP were not available although it can influence its tolerance [6]. In addition, the data collected during PP from the ICU software were sampled hourly at a specific time and may not reflect the average of the hour. Only 4 patients had an intracranial oxygenation probe improved

<footnote>*p* value IH group versus no-IH group (using the Mann-Whitney or the Fisher's test)</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Intracranial pressure changes during prone positioning. Each point represents a patient, in blue patients who did not experience intracranial hypertension (IH) during prone positioning (PP) and in red patients who did. **a** ICP changes over the PP session; solid lines indicate the median intracranial pressure (ICP) values of each group. **b** ICP changes 1 h after the PP onset according to the initial ICP before PP; when the initial ICP was below 17.5 mmHg and the ICP did not increase PP took place without IH (green lines), whereas an ICP above 17.5 mmHg or an ICP elevation over 10 mmHg were predictive of IH</figcaption></figure>

during PP and suggested a preserved cerebral blood flow despite the ICP increase. Finally, the management of IH was not subject to protocol.

To conclude, we would argue for assessing the brain compliance before PP (e.g. transcranial Doppler), ICP, and the tolerance to an obstacle to venous return. Moreover, ICP changes within 1 h after PP onset could be useful to choose to pursue PP or not, as well as cerebral multi-modal monitoring to evaluate PP tolerance. This strategy needs to be evaluated in a prospective clinical trial.

**Acknowledgements**

Not applicable.

**Authors' contributions**

BP, LAC, DF and MS conceived and design the study. BP, MS and DG collected the data. BB, BP and LAC analysed and interpreted the data. BB and BP draft the article. All authors critically revised the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

**Funding**

Not applicable.

**Availability of data and materials**

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

**Ethics approval and consent to participate**

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the French Intensive Care Society (no IRB 00010254-2018-064).

**Consent for publication**

Not applicable.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

**Author details**

Received: 30 November 2020 Accepted: 26 December 2020

Published online: 18 January 2021

**References**

1. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard J-C, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159-68.

2. Thelandersson A, Cider Å, Nellgård B. Prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with reduced intracranial compliance. Acta Anaest Scand. 2006;50:937-41.

3. Roth C, Ferbert A, Deinsberger W, Kleffmann J, Kästner S, Godau J, et al. Does prone positioning increase intracranial pressure? A retrospective analysis of patients with acute brain injury and acute respiratory failure. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21:186-91.

4. Robba C, Poole D, McNett M, Asehnoune K, Bösel J, Bruder N, et al. Mechanical ventilation in patients with acute brain injury: recommendations of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine consensus. Intens Care Med. 2020;46:1-14.

5. Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS, Corteen EA, Czosnyka M, Timothy J, et al. Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1119-30.

6. Højlund J, Sandmand M, Sonne M, Mantoni T, Jørgensen HL, Belhage B, et al. Effect of head rotation on cerebral blood velocity in the prone position. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:647258.

**Publisher's Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<footnote n="1">¹ Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Pierre Wertheimer, Département d'anesthésie réanimation, Hôpital Neurologique Pierre Wertheimer, 59</footnote>

<footnote>Boulevard Pinel, 69500 Bron, Lyon, France. ² Département d'anesthésie Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Université Toulouse 3-Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. ³ Département d'anesthésie Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ EA 7426 PI3 (Pathophysiology of Injury-Induced Immunosuppression), Hospices Civils de Lyon/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1/bioMérieux, Hôpital E. Herriot, 5, place d'Arsonval, 69437 Lyon Cedex 03, France. ⁵ Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, U1028, UMR 5292, Bron, France.</footnote>