Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study

Table 4 Comparisons between patients avoid intubation and received invasive ventilation

	Success, n = 11	Failure, n = 9	P value
Male (n, %)	8 (73%)	5 (56%)	0.435
Age	47 ± 9	54 ± 11	0.616
Diagnosis
Influenza (n, %)	5 (45%)	4 (44%)	0.965
Other viral pneumonia (n, %)	1 (9%)	1 (11%)	0.884
Pneumonia without pathogen (n, %)	5 (45%)	2 (22%)	0.104
Legionella pneumonia (n, %)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	0.374
Pneumocystis pneumonia (n, %)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	0.269
PaO₂/FiO₂ before prone position	125 ± 41	119 ± 19	0.043*
SpO₂ (%) before prone position	95 ± 1	93 ± 3	0.006*
Moderate ARDS (n, %)	7 (64%)	3 (33%)	0.174
Severe ARDS (n, %)	4 (36%)	6 (67%)	0.174
Need for ECMO support (n, %)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	0.043*
NIV combined with prone positioning (n, %)	5 (45%)	5 (56%)	0.653
HFNC combined with prone positioning (n, %)	8 (73%)	4 (44%)	0.409
Mortality (n, %)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	1.000

ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, NIV non-invasive ventilation, HFNC high-flow nasal cannula

ISSN: 1364-8535