Infectious Disease
Smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations failed to promote adherence
Source/Disclosures
Disclosures:
Rampon reports no relevant financial disclosures. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.
ADD TOPIC TO EMAIL ALERTS
Receive an email when new articles are posted on
Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . ” data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe
We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact [email protected].
Back to Healio
Smartphone-guided recommendations and instructions for self-prone positioning failed to promote adherence among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, according to findings published in Chest.
“These results help to inform the use of self-guided prone positioning recommendations among nonintubated low acuity patients with COVID-19, inpatient smartphone-based interventions and self-prone positioning vs. assisted prone positioning in nonintubated patients,” Garrett Rampon, MD, pulmonologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, and colleagues wrote.
Source: Adobe Stock.
APPEX-19 was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 293 participants with COVID-19 (mean age, 53 years; 39.9% women) who were not intubated but were receiving less than 6 L per minute of supplemental oxygen. Participants were randomly assigned to a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention (n = 159) or usual care (n = 134). Participants in the intervention group received messages via their personal smartphone with an overview of the potential benefits of prone positioning for COVID-19; recommendations to prone position up to four times a day for 1 to 2 hours each session and nightly for a total of 12 hours; pictorial instructions for safe self-prone positioning; and instructions to track time spent in different body positions.
The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration or ICU transfer.
The APPEX-19 trial was stopped prematurely due to slow enrollment.
Of the 70 participants in the intervention group and 69 participants in the usual care group who self-reported body positioning, 71.4% in the intervention group and 59.4% in the usual care group attempted prone positioning.
Thirty-one participants assigned usual care and 32 participants assigned the self-prone positioning intervention experienced respiratory impairment or ICU transfer. There was a 72.1% posterior probability of superiority for the intervention, which was less than the 95% threshold for superiority, according to the researchers..
Twenty-seven percent of participants assigned usual care and 11.9% of participants assigned the intervention reported adverse events. Overall, 8.8% of participants in the intervention group and 20.9% of participants in the usual care group reported being very uncomfortable with self-prone positioning, and 5.7% and 9%, respectively, reported loss of an IV catheter, and 0.6% in the intervention group reported loss of a urinary catheter.
The researchers concluded that this study “was underpowered to make conclusions concerning the effectiveness of self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions or self-prone positioning itself in reducing clinical deterioration.”
ADD TOPIC TO EMAIL ALERTS
Receive an email when new articles are posted on
Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . ” data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe
We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact [email protected].
Back to Healio
