Skip to main content
Download PDF

Hemodynamic Implications of Prone Positioning in Patients with ARDS

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 98 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2023. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2023. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901.

Introduction

Prone positioning is recommended in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) when the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) to inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) is < 150 mmHg despite optimized mechanical ventilation or use of neuromuscular blockade [1, 2]. Indeed, prone position may improve arterial oxygenation [3, 4] and sessions lasting more than 16 h are associated with reduced mortality [5]. The use of prone positioning has spread considerably in recent years. Whereas in a large observational study in 2014 only 16% of patients with severe ARDS underwent prone positioning [6], more than two thirds of patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS had several sessions of prone positioning during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 [7, 8].

Prone positioning improves oxygenation through improvement of the ventilation-to-perfusion ratio since aeration and ventilation increase in the most dorsal parts of the lung, whereas pulmonary blood flow remains predominant in these parts [9]. Lung recruitment also permits a decrease in atelectrauma, reduction in the transpulmonary driving pressure, and increase in lung compliance [10]. Hence, prone positioning may limit the mechanical power [11] and might thus prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

In addition to the effects on oxygenation and respiratory mechanics, prone positioning induces some hemodynamic effects, which may also be beneficial [12, 13]. In this article, we review how prone positioning can exert those favorable cardiovascular effects. Moreover, prone position sessions are at least 16 h long [1], and even sometimes extended up to 39 h [14]. During such a long time period, the question of administering fluid therapy may arise. Thus, we will explore how preload responsiveness could be detected to guide fluid therapy in patients in the prone position.

Hemodynamic Effects of Prone Positioning

Prone Positioning Affects Venous Return Determinants and May Increase Right Ventricular Preload

Venous return is the blood flow from the systemic venous network towards the right heart [15]. According to Guyton’s model, venous return is equal to the venous return pressure gradient divided by the resistance to venous return [16]. The pressure gradient of venous return is defined as the difference between the mean systemic pressure (Pms) and the right atrial pressure [16]. Prone positioning increases the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) [12, 17] (Fig. 1). This may cause two distinct effects on venous return. On the one hand, prone positioning increases Pms and central venous pressure (CVP) to a lesser extent, resulting in an increase in the pressure gradient of venous return [17] (Fig. 1). These effects are due: (1) to lowering the trunk from the semi-recumbent position to the strict supine horizontal position, secondary to a passive shift of blood from the splanchnic compartment to the heart, as occurs during passive leg raising [18]; and (2) to transferring the patient from the strict supine to the prone position, an effect that is predominant [17]. On the other hand, the increase in IAP induced by prone positioning also increases the resistance to venous return [17] (Fig. 1). An increase in venous return can be observed when the increase in its pressure gradient is not countered by the increase in its resistance [17] (Fig. 1). This increase in venous return results in an increase in right ventricular (RV) preload, as assessed by the increase in CVP [11, 12, 17]. The increase in CVP may be related to the simple transmission of IAP to the thorax, but this is unlikely as the esophageal pressure increases to a lesser extent than does CVP when patients are transferred from supine to prone position [11, 19].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hemodynamic effects of prone positioning. CVP central venous pressure, LV left ven- tricular, Pms mean systemic pressure, RV right ventricular, RVR resistance to venous return

Full size image

Prone Positioning May Decrease Pulmonary Vascular

Resistance and Right Ventricular Afterload

In patients with ARDS, RV dysfunction is not rare, its prevalence ranging from 10 to 30% in large observational studies [20,21,22,23]. Severe RV dysfunction was shown to be associated with increased mortality [20]. The main cause of RV dysfunction in ARDS is the increase in RV afterload secondary to the increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). The latter may be due to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction [24], to inflammatory mediators [25], to microthrombi formation [26], and/or to the hemodynamic effects of mechanical ventilation [27, 28]. Regarding the latter mechanism, tidal volume at each insufflation and application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) over the entire ventilator cycle increase the lung volume. This may increase PVR by compressing the intra-alveolar vessels and, thus, increase the proportion of lung West zones 2, where the alveolar pressure is higher than the pulmonary venous pressure [29] (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Relationship between lung volume and pulmonary vascular resistance. FRC functional residual capacity, RV residual volume, TLC total lung capacity

Full size image

Prone positioning may reverse some of the mechanisms responsible for RV dysfunction during ARDS. First, by improving arterial oxygenation, prone position should decrease hypoxic vasoconstriction [3, 5, 12, 30]. Second, prone positioning allows the recruitment of the vertebral parts of the lungs, resulting in a more homogeneous alveoli aeration [31, 32]. This recruitment of non-aerated alveoli increases the diameter of the extra-alveolar vessels in these regions (Fig. 2). Prone positioning also dampens the overdistension present in hyperinflated lung areas. In this way, it should decrease the compression of intra-alveolar vessels in these zones and decrease the transpulmonary driving pressure, according to principles described by Whittenberger et al. [33] (Fig. 2). Moreover, by recruiting lung units, prone positioning can prevent the application of too high PEEP levels. Finally, prone positioning can increase venous return and central blood volume [17] which, in turn, increases pulmonary venous pressure, releases the compression of some previously compressed pulmonary microvessels, and shifts these vessels from West zone 2 to West zone 3 conditions. The combination of all these effects should result in a decrease in PVR and RV afterload [12, 13] (Fig. 1). It remains to be determined whether the effect of prone positioning on hemodynamics in general and on RV function in particular contributes to its beneficial effect on outcome. In this regard, we have already learned that prone positioning could be beneficial in responders as well as in non-responders defined by changes in blood gas variables (increase in PaO2/FiO2 or decrease in the arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2)) [5, 34].

Prone Positioning May Increase Left Ventricular Preload

Left ventricular (LV) preload can increase secondary to the improvement in RV preload and afterload with prone positioning, as illustrated by the increase in the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) reported in previous studies [12, 35, 36]. Moreover, in patients with RV enlargement prior to prone positioning, reduction in RV afterload dampens the RV/LV interdependence, as illustrated by the decrease in the RV end-diastolic area/LV end-diastolic area ratio measured by echocardiography. This should also increase LV end-diastolic volume and thus LV preload [12, 13].

Overall Effects of Prone Positioning on Cardiac Output

Several studies have evaluated the effects of prone positioning on cardiac output with variable results. Some have found that prone positioning has little or no effect [37,38,39], whereas others have described an increase in cardiac output [13, 40, 41]. In a recent study evaluating 197 prone position sessions in 107 patients, Ruste et al. found that cardiac output decreased ≥15% in 23% of the sessions, increased ≥15% in 25% of the sessions, and remained stable in 52% of the sessions [42]. The changes in cardiac output with prone positioning likely depend on the volume status and the degree of preload responsiveness prior to prone positioning. Indeed, cardiac output increases only in patients with LV preload reserve [12, 17] (Fig. 1). However, cardiac output may decrease in both preload responsive and unresponsive patients if IAP increases to a very large extent with prone positioning, irrespective of the IAP value in the supine position [17]. It is noteworthy that prone positioning can increase venous return, and thus cardiac output, only if the IAP is lower than the intramural pressure of the inferior vena cava (i.e., when the vena cava is in a Takata zone 3) [43, 44]. When profound hypovolemia is present and/or when the IAP under prone position is high, the venous return should be reduced, due to the extension of Takata zone non-3 conditions and to the occurrence of vascular waterfall phenomena [17, 43, 44].

Thus, a major goal when using prone positioning in patients with ARDS should be to minimize the increase in IAP, because a large increase in IAP, independent of its baseline value, may exert some detrimental effects on the circulation [17]. In this regard, in a crossover study, Michelet et al. found that using an air-cushioned mattress was associated with a limited increase in IAP (+ 4 mmHg) compared to a conventional foam mattress (+ 8 mmHg) [36]. Also, the use of thoraco-pelvic supports allows free abdominal movement and may decrease IAP. In a randomized study in 11 patients comparing prone position with or without thoraco-pelvic supports, Chiumello et al. demonstrated that application of thoraco-pelvic supports decreased chest wall compliance, increased pleural pressure, and slightly worsened hemodynamics without any advantage on gas exchange [45]. Moreover, prolonged contact with the supports could induce pressure sores. Finally, the increase in IAP with prone positioning could impair the perfusion of intra-abdominal organs. However, in studies measuring IAP during prone positioning, the increase in IAP was limited and, as long as cardiac output was preserved, hepato splanchnic perfusion [39], liver function [40], gastric intramucosal energy balance [39, 40], and renal function [41] were not impaired. Therefore, the increase in IAP with prone positioning is rather limited. The use of thoraco-pelvic support should be avoided and limited to patients with a high increase in IAP with prone positioning [46].

Detecting Preload Responsiveness in Patients in the Prone Position

Acute circulatory failure is common in patients with ARDS [8, 47] whether it is secondary to sepsis, vasoplegia induced by sedative drugs, or the side-effects of mechanical ventilation. In the context of ARDS, the optimization of hemodynamics and cardiac output is important since insufficient cardiac output may worsen hypoxemia due to intrapulmonary shunt (low mixed venous oxygen tension effect). Fluid therapy is often considered as the first-line therapy to improve cardiac output and microvasculatory blood flow. However, only one half of patients would effectively benefit from fluid administration in terms of increase in cardiac output, which defines preload responsiveness [48]. Moreover, the pathophysiology of ARDS is marked by increased pulmonary microvascular permeability, with the risk of worsening lung edema when fluids are given. It is also now well demonstrated that the cumulative fluid balance is independently associated with mortality in patients with ARDS [49, 50]. The benefit/risk ratio of fluid therapy should thus be carefully evaluated before any fluid administration, and it is therefore essential to assess preload responsiveness. In this regard, several dynamic indices or tests can be performed [51]. We will review those which have been evaluated and can be used in the prone position during ARDS.

Trendelenburg Maneuver

The passive leg raising (PLR) test, consisting of transferring a patient from a semi-recumbent position to a position where the trunk is horizontal and the lower limbs are elevated at 30–45° [52], enables the prediction of fluid responsiveness with good reliability [53, 54]. Unfortunately, this postural maneuver is not applicable in the prone position. A Trendelenburg maneuver has been proposed as an alternative, as it mobilizes the blood from the splanchnic venous reservoir and the lower limbs to the intrathoracic compartment, increasing cardiac preload in patients in prone position [55] and receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) [56]. In a study of 33 patients with ARDS in the prone position, Yonis et al. found that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of cardiac output changes during the Trendelenburg maneuver was 0.90 (95% CI 0.80–1.00). An increase in cardiac output ≥8% during the Trendelenburg maneuver enabled the diagnosis of fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI, 67-100), and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 72-100) [55].

End-Expiratory Occlusion Test

The end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) is based on heart-lung interactions. A 15-s expiratory hold transitorily decreases the intrathoracic pressure and thus increases cardiac preload. This increases cardiac output in case of preload responsiveness [57]. An increase in cardiac output ≥5% during an EEOT has been shown to reliably predict fluid responsiveness in patients in the supine position [57, 58]. In the surgical setting, Messina et al. evaluated the performance of an EEOT at 6 and 8 ml/kg to predict fluid responsiveness in 40 patients having spinal surgery in the prone position [59]. They found that an EEOT at either tidal volume value did not reliably predict fluid responsiveness. However, it is important to note that the ventilator interruption during expiration lasted only 15 s, whereas the cardiac output monitor used in that study averaged hemodynamic data over a 30-s period, with a probable dampening of the changes in cardiac output potentially produced by the EEOT [59]. In patients with ARDS, the study by Yonis et al. also found that an EEOT performed with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg did not predict fluid responsiveness [55]. This may be due to attenuated effects of expiratory hold on venous return increase, since the IAP increase with prone positioning may promote Takata zone 2 conditions in some patients. It must be noted that cardiac arrhythmias were present in 42% of patients in this study [55]. In another study evaluating 84 prone position sessions in patients with severe ARDS with no cardiac arrhythmias, an EEOT at 6 ml/kg was reliable to predict fluid responsiveness with an AUC of 0.93 ± 0.06 (0.87–0.98) but with a low cut-off percent cardiac output increase (3.2%) [60]. Such a low cut-off, which has been reported by other studies [61], requires the use of precise cardiac output monitoring.

Pulse Pressure Variation

In the absence of cardiac output monitoring, other hemodynamic variables could be used to predict fluid responsiveness. Changes in arterial pulse pressure during mechanical ventilation—also called pulse pressure variation (PPV)—which are secondary to the changes in stroke volume occurring during the respiratory cycle [62], predict fluid responsiveness in patients receiving a tidal volume of at least 8 ml/kg provided they are perfectly adapted to their ventilator and they have no cardiac arrhythmia [63, 64]. Studies evaluating PPV in the operating room setting showed that PPV could predict fluid responsiveness in the prone position [65,66,67]. Nevertheless, tidal volume was ≥ 8 ml/kg and lung compliance was not impaired in these patients [65,66,67]. Such results cannot be extrapolated to patients with ARDS, who have low lung compliance and are generally ventilated with low tidal volumes, two conditions that alter the ability of PPV to predict fluid responsiveness [68,69,70]. In a study evaluating the predictive performance of PPV during prone positioning in patients with ARDS ventilated with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg, Shi et al. found that PPV ≥ 6.5% enabled preload responsiveness to be assessed with an AUC of 0.85 ± 0.05 (0.77–0.92), a sensitivity of 74% (57%–95%), and a specificity of 79% (56%–96%). However, the gray zone of PPV (between 5 and 8%) included 40% of the cases [60].

Tidal Volume Challenge

To overcome the limitations of PPV interpretation in case of low tidal volume ventilation, Myatra et al. described a tidal volume challenge (TVC) that consists of a 1-min increase in tidal volume from 6 to 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight [71]. An absolute increase in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC predicted fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients in the supine position [71]. In patients with ARDS undergoing prone positioning, Shi et al. showed that an absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an AUC of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) [60]. The ability of a TVC to predict preload responsiveness was better than that of baseline PPV, but comparable with an EEOT performed at 6 ml/kg [60]. In the study by Yonis et al., the Trendelenburg maneuver performed better than the TVC, but the assessment was performed in only 19 patients, since patients with arrhythmia were excluded [55]. In summary, the TVC, which has been repeatedly found to be reliable in supine patients seems also to be reliable during prone positioning [59, 60]. It has the advantage of assessing preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements and could be easily used in low and middle-resource settings.

Mini-Fluid Challenge

The mini-fluid challenge consists of administering a bolus of a small fluid volume (100–150 ml in 1 min) and measuring the changes in hemodynamic variables. The increase in cardiac output after the mini-fluid challenge can predict the increase in cardiac output when administering 400 ml of fluids, for a total of 500 ml fluid administration [72]. This test was shown to be reliable to predict fluid responsiveness in supine conditions [58, 69]. The change in PPV with a mini-fluid challenge could also predict fluid responsiveness [73]. Although it has not yet been evaluated in patients in the prone position, there is no reason why it could not be applicable to these patients. However, in contrast to other above-mentioned tests, the mini-fluid challenge is not reversible as it requires fluid administration.

Conclusion

Placing a patient with ARDS in the prone position has important implications for both venous return and RV function. While an increase in IAP tends to raise the upstream pressure for venous return, an increase in venous return may be observed only in the absence of a simultaneous rise in the resistance to venous return. Prone positioning can decrease RV afterload, an effect which is beneficial in patients with prior RV dysfunction. On the other hand, prone positioning could reduce cardiac output and organ perfusion in some conditions. Therefore, hemodynamic assessment, including echocardiography and cardiac output monitoring, is important when placing a patient in the prone position. Hemodynamic assessment can also guide fluid management using dynamic tests of preload responsiveness, such as the Trendelenburg maneuver, an EEOT, or a TVC.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Papazian L, Aubron C, Brochard L, et al. Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9:69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hajjar LA, Costa IBSDS, Rizk SI, et al. Intensive care management of patients with COVID-19: a practical approach. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:36.

  3. Gattinoni L, Mascheroni D, Fumagalli R. Effect of prone positioning on the survival of patients with acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:568–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guérin C, Constantin JM, Bellani G, et al. A prospective international observational prevaence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) study. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:22–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315:788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. COVID-ICU Group on behalf of the REVA Network and the COVID-ICU Investigators. Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:60–73.

  8. Greco M, De Corte T, Ercole A, et al. Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave: the global UNITE-COVID study. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:690–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter T, Bellani G, Harris RS, et al. Effect of prone position on regional shunt, aeration, and perfusion in experimental acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:480–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Guérin C, Albert RK, Beitler J, et al. Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:2385–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Boesing C, Graf PT, Schmitt F, et al. Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study. Crit Care. 2022;26:82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jozwiak M, Teboul JL, Anguel N, et al. Beneficial hemodynamic effects of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:1428–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vieillard-Baron A, Charron C, Caille V, Belliard G, Page B, Jardin F. Prone positioning unloads the right ventricle in severe ARDS. Chest. 2007;132:1440–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walter T, Zucman N, Mullaert J, et al. Extended prone positioning duration for COVID-19- related ARDS: benefits and detriments. Crit Care. 2022;26:208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Persichini R, Lai C, Teboul JL, Adda I, Guérin L, Monnet X. Venous return and mean systemic filling pressure: physiology and clinical applications. Crit Care. 2022;26:150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyton AC, Lindsey AW, Abernathy B, Richardson T. Venous return at various right atrial pressures and the normal venous return curve. Am J Physiol. 1957;189:609–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lai C, Adda I, Teboul JL, et al. Effects of prone positioning on venous return in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:781–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jabot J, Teboul JL, Richard C, Monnet X. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: importance of the postural change. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:85–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mezidi M, Parrilla FJ, Yonis H, et al. Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure strategy in supine and prone position on lung and chest wall mechanics in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mekontso Dessap A, Boissier F, Charron C, et al. Acute cor pulmonale during protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: prevalence, predictors, and clinical impact. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:862–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Huang S, Vignon P, Mekontso Dessap A, et al. Echocardiography findings in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units: a multi-national observational study (the ECHO- COVID study). Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:667–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lhéritier G, Legras A, Caille A, et al. Prevalence and prognostic value of acute cor pulmonale and patent foramen ovale in ventilated patients with early acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1734–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vieillard-Baron A, Schmitt JM, Augarde R, et al. Acute cor pulmonale in acute respiratory distress syndrome submitted to protective ventilation: incidence, clinical implications, and prognosis. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:5–1555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sylvester JT, Shimoda LA, Aaronson PI, Ward JPT. Hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction. Physiol Rev. 2012;92:367–520.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pandolfi R, Barreira B, Moreno E, et al. Role of acid sphingomyelinase and IL-6 as mediators of endotoxin-induced pulmonary vascular dysfunction. Thorax. 2017;72:460–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ryan D, Frohlich S, McLoughlin P. Pulmonary vascular dysfunction in ARDS. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fougères E, Teboul JL, Richard C, Osman D, Chemla D, Monnet X. Hemodynamic impact of a positive end-expiratory pressure setting in acute respiratory distress syndrome: importance of the volume status. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:802–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mahmood SS, Pinsky MR. Heart-lung interactions during mechanical ventilation: the basics. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. West JB, Dollery CT, Naimark A. Distribution of blood flow in isolated lung; relation to vascular and alveolar pressures. J Appl Physiol. 1964;19:713–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Orchard CH, Sanchez de Leon R, Sykes MK. The relationship between hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and arterial oxygen tension in the intact dog. J Physiol. 1983;338:61–74.

  31. Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, et al. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1775–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fossali T, Pavlovsky B, Ottolina D, et al. Effects of prone position on lung recruitment and ventilation-perfusion matching in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a combined CT scan/electrical impedance tomography study. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:723–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Whittenberger JL, McGregor M, Berglund E, Borst HG. Influence of state of inflation of the lung on pulmonary vascular resistance. J Appl Physiol. 1960;15:878–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Albert RK, Keniston A, Baboi L, Ayzac L, Guérin C. Prone position–induced improvement in gas exchange does not predict improved survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:494–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Borelli M, Lampati L, Vascotto E, Fumagalli R, Pesenti A. Hemodynamic and gas exchange response to inhaled nitric oxide and prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:2707–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Michelet P, Roch A, Gainnier M, Sainty J-M, Auffray JP, Papazian L. Influence of support on intra-abdominal pressure, hepatic kinetics of indocyanine green and extravascular lung water during prone positioning in patients with ARDS: a randomized crossover study. Crit Care. 2005;9:R251–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. McAuley D, Giles S, Fichter H, Perkins G, Gao F. What is the optimal duration of ventilation in the prone position in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome? Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:414–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rialp G, Betbesé AJ, Pérez-Márquez M, Mancebo J. Short-term effects of inhaled nitric oxide and prone position in pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:243–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Matejovic M, Rokyta R, Radermacher P, Krouzecky A, Sramek V, Novak I. Effect of prone position on hepato-splanchnic hemodynamics in acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:1750–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hering R, Vorwerk R, Wrigge H, et al. Prone positioning, systemic hemodynamics, hepatic indocyanine green kinetics, and gastric intramucosal energy balance in patients with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:53–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hering R, Wrigge H, Vorwerk R, Brensing KA. The effects of prone positioning on intraab-dominal pressure and cardiovascular and renal function in patients with acute lung injury. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:1226–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ruste M, Bitker L, Yonis H, et al. Hemodynamic effects of extended prone position sessions in ARDS. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Takata M, Wise RA, Robotham JL. Effects of abdominal pressure on venous return: abdominal vascular zone conditions. J Appl Physiol. 1990;69:1961–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kitano Y, Takata M, Sasaki N, Zhang Q, Yamamoto S, Miyasaka K. Influence of increased abdominal pressure on steady-state cardiac performance. J Appl Physiol. 1999;86:1651–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chiumello D, Cressoni M, Racagni M, et al. Effects of thoraco-pelvic supports during prone position in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome: a physiological study. Crit Care. 2006;10:R87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kirkpatrick AW, Pelosi P, De Waele JJ, et al. Clinical review: intra-abdominal hypertension: does it influence the physiology of prone ventilation? Crit Care. 2010;14:232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Brun-Buisson C, Minelli C, Bertolini G, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units. Results from the ALIVE study. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:51–61.

  48. Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:155–70.

  50. Jozwiak M, Silva S, Persichini R, et al. Extravascular lung water is an independent prognostic factor in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:472–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Monnet X, Shi R, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What’s new? Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:46.

  52. Monnet X, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Crit Care. 2015;19:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1935–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cherpanath TGV, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:981–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yonis H, Bitker L, Aublanc M, et al. Change in cardiac output during Trendelenburg maneuver is a reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the prone position under protective ventilation. Crit Care. 2017;21:295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Luo J, Su Y, Dong L, et al. Trendelenburg maneuver predicts fluid responsiveness in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gavelli F, Teboul JL, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test: please, let me hold your breath! Crit Care. 2019;23:274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Messina A, Dell’Anna A, Baggiani M, et al. Functional hemodynamic tests: a systematic review and a metanalysis on the reliability of the end-expiratory occlusion test and of the mini- fluid challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness. Crit Care. 2019;23:264.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Messina A, Montagnini C, Cammarota G, et al. Assessment of fluid responsiveness in prone neurosurgical patients undergoing protective ventilation: role of dynamic indices, tidal volume challenge, and end-expiratory occlusion test. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:752–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Shi R, Ayed S, Moretto F, et al. Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position. Crit Care. 2022;26:219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Gavelli F, Shi R, Teboul J-L, Azzolina D, Monnet X. The end-expiratory occlusion test for detecting preload responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Teboul JL, Monnet X, Chemla D, Michard F. Arterial pulse pressure variation with mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:22–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18:650.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, et al. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ali A, Abdullah T, Sabanci PA, Dogan L, Orhan-Sungur M, Akinci IO. Comparison of ability of pulse pressure variation to predict fluid responsiveness in prone and supine position: anobservational study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2019;33:573–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Biais M, Bernard O, Ha JC, Degryse C, Sztark F. Abilities of pulse pressure variations and stroke volume variations to predict fluid responsiveness in prone position during scoliosis surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:407–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Yang SY, Shim JK, Song Y, Seo SJ, Kwak YL. Validation of pulse pressure variation and corrected flow time as predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients in the prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:713–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferré A, et al. Passive leg-raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:152–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Alvarado Sánchez JI, Caicedo Ruiz JD, Diaztagle Fernández JJ, Amaya Zuñiga WF, Ospina-Tascón GA, Cruz Martínez LE. Predictors of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients mechanically ventilated at low tidal volumes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:28.

  70. De Backer D, Heenen S, Piagnerelli M, Koch M, Vincent JL. Pulse pressure variations to predict fluid responsiveness: influence of tidal volume. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:517–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Myatra SN, Prabu NR, Divatia JV, Monnet X, Kulkarni AP, Teboul JL. The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation after a “tidal volume challenge” reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Muller L, Toumi M, Bousquet PJ, et al. An increase in aortic blood flow after an infusion of 100 ml colloid over 1 minute can predict fluid responsiveness: the mini-fluid challenge study. Anesthesiology. 2011;115:541–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mallat J, Meddour M, Durville E, et al. Decrease in pulse pressure and stroke volume variations after mini-fluid challenge accurately predicts fluid responsiveness. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:449–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AP-HP, Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, FHU SEPSIS, Groupe de Recherche Clinique CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Christopher Lai, Xavier Monnet & Jean-Louis Teboul

Authors
  1. Christopher Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Monnet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Louis Teboul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Drafting of the manuscript: C.L., J-L.T. and X.M. Critical revision of the manuscript: C.L., J-L.T. and X.M. Supervision: J-L.T. and X.M. Approval of the final manuscript: C.L., J-L.T. and X.M. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Lai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

C.L. has no conflict of interest to declare. X.M. is a member of the Medical Advisory Board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge) and received honoraria for lectures from Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge) and Baxter. J-L.T. is a member of the Medical Advisory Board of Pulsion Medical Systems (Getinge).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lai, C., Monnet, X. & Teboul, JL. Hemodynamic Implications of Prone Positioning in Patients with ARDS. Crit Care 27, 98 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04369-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04369-x

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535