Prone Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Rapid Scoping and Expanded Grey Literature Review for the covid-19 Pandemic

Introduction

For patients to have the best chance of surviving sudden cardiac arrest, high quality chest compressions and defibrillation need to be initiated without delay.[1] Traditionally, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is taught and performed in the supine position, but even short delays-such as would occur if proned patients are first turned to the supine position - can be clinically detrimental.[2] The question of whether to supine patients before initiating resuscitation has long been relevant for out-of-hospital arrest patients found face down, and for intraoperative arrests during prone surgeries i.e. spine surgery, neurosurgery, retroperitoneal surgery. More recently, there has been an increase in prone mechanical ventilation in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients, since the 2013 Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial.[3] Since the covid-19 pandemic, however, the issue of prone resuscitation has become especially important.[4] This is because, while we await robust evidence, prone positioning has been recommended in both confirmed and suspected cases, and in severely-ill/sedated patients and less ill/awake patients.[5–9]

‘Flipping’ a patient from prone to supine, especially during an emergency, comes with potential risks to both patient and staff.[10] Other than time delay, there could be endotracheal tube dislodgement, disconnection of vascular lines, disconnection of ventilation tubing, and staff contamination. There is also the mechanical challenge of turning obese patients, and potential injury to staff and patients. Especially relevant during pandemics, rolling a patient means that extra people (often six in total) enter a potentially contaminated space. There means extra delays until all of these staff have appropriately donned protective equipment, and the cumulative risks associated with doffing.

While almost all practitioners will supine patients before attempting an advanced airway, there is an initial period where compressions and defibrillation are performed before airway capture or supplementary breaths. Moreover, resuscitation guidelines have acknowledged that there are incidences where initiation of non-supine resuscitation is appropriate.[11] To date, most frontline clinicians have limited knowledge of the literature surrounding prone resuscitation. This is noteworthy now that proning is increasing. The goal of this scoping review is to assist clinicians forced to decide, in the midst of an emergency, whether CPR should be initiated with the patient ‘proned’, or whether the risks and delays of ‘supine-ing’ are unavoidable. More specifically, our objectives are: i) to examine the extent of research into prone resuscitation, ii) determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review, iii) summarize and disseminate research related to prone resuscitation, iv) and identify strategic gaps in the literature to aid future research, education and guidelines.

Methods

This scoping review followed the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley and the enhancements of Levac et al.[12,13] It incorporated six steps: i) research question identification, ii) relevant study identification, iii) selection of studies, iv) charting the data, v) collate, summarize and report results, and vi) contributor provided references. Furthermore, this review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).[14] Our findings are presented in tabular format, accompanied by narrative summaries.

Results

The search process retrieved 327 references from bibliographic databases. Once duplicates were removed, 202 references remained. An additional 126 references were identified from other sources as per the methods described above. A further 59 duplicates were identified and removed, resulting in a total of 269 items for title and abstract screening. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria to titles/abstracts, 46 articles underwent full text screening. Subsequently, 22 more articles were excluded for the following reasons: the patient was returned to the supine position prior to initiating resuscitation (n=6), cardiac arrest could not be confirmed (n=6), no new data was presented (n=4), data was from a pilot of a study already included (n = 2), no resuscitation was attempted, or we were unable to obtain a full text article (n = 2). See PRISMA flow sheet (Figure 1) for more details. Overall, of 453 identified studies, 24 (5%) studies met our inclusion criteria and underwent extraction and narrative summary.[17-40]

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Prone Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation PRISMA Flow Diagram

Discussion

Despite growing interest in prone positioning, most healthcare professionals are unfamiliar with prone CPR. Accordingly, any practice change would need widespread education and practice. This, in turn, should be justified by robust evidence. Our review highlights that there may be more supportive literature than many clinicians realize, but also many important gaps. The first recommendation for prone CPR was over three decades ago (1989),[41] meaning the concept is not new. What has changed is its importance: because more patients will be ‘proned’ due to covid-19, and because this practice may continue henceforth. In short, an increase in proning could mean more cardiac arrests in the prone position.

Presumably, the most pressing question is whether patients survive when resuscitated proned. After all, if universally unsuccessful then it should not be performed, or we need to accept/minimize the risks and delays associated with ‘supine-ing’ patients. The first concern is that the available guidance is predominantly from single cases or case series. Studies have also yet to widely encompass the sickest ICU patients. These ICU patients often have low post-arrest survival, because of multiorgan impairment and because the arrest commonly occurs despite aggressive preemption. This means that even before covid-19, ICU practitioners faced uncertainty regarding whether to perform default CPR. They now have added risk to themselves, and responsibility to keep their teams safe. Overall, practitioners must currently extrapolate from the operating room experience. Brown et al. reviewed 22 case reports of prone cardiac arrests, 10 of whom survived to discharge, [42] and Mazer et al. and Wei et al. found prone compressions generated a higher systolic and mean arterial pressure during circulatory arrest in ICU patients compared to standard CPR.[37][38]

In terms of guidelines, and despite the dearth of data, the UK Resuscitation Council does recommend starting chest compressions without changing the position for adult patients who arrest during neurosurgery.[43] They added that the efficacy of CPR should be judged using the end-tidal CO₂ monitor, and the arterial pressure waveform. Prudently, they advise that patients be turned quickly supine if feedback from these monitors is judged insufficient. The 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care are more circumspect but still recommended: ‘when patients cannot be placed in the supine position, it may be reasonable for rescuers to provide CPR in the prone position, particularly in hospitalized patients with an advanced airway’.[11]

The next issue concerns optimum technique for prone chest compressions. The Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association make no specific recommendations. However, the first two cases of successful prone chest compressions (in neurosurgical patients) were published in 1992 by Sun et al, using what they called ‘reversed precordial compression’.[32] In everyday language, this means compressing over the mid-thoracic spine plus a hand under the lower sternum: for counter-pressure.[32] Similarly, Dequin et al. reported successful prone CPR in an ICU patient, in which they used two-handed mid-thoracic compression and a second person for sternal counter-pressure.[22] Gomes et al. reported successful prone CPR in a neurosurgical patient, using compression over the mid-thoracic level, but no sternal counter-pressure.[44] Kwon et al. reviewed 100 chest CTs to determine where to compress the largest left ventricular mass. Once again, it was mid-thoracic, below the inferior angle of the scapulae.[40]

In 2020, guidelines were expedited by the UK’s Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Intensive Care Society, spurred by the covid-19 pandemic.[10] These organizations jointly recommend a two-handed technique over the mid-thoracic spine, and between the two scapulae. The use of a second person to apply counter-pressure is optional. Given the added logistics, the contamination risk, and the overall recommendation to limit resuscitator in the room, we would recommend against this additional step.

Clearly, our scoping review has limitations which limit its generalizability. These include a general lack of studies, a focus on operating theatre patients and a preponderance of witnessed arrests. The evidence is mostly from cases, and is therefore of comparatively low quality and predates the 2015 resuscitation guidelines. We also had to rely upon Google Translate for one French, one German and one Korean case report. Regardless, rather than prone resuscitation being as an area of niche interest, we believe our modest scoping review has highlighted an area of increasingly clinical relevance and research priority.

Competing Interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

This scoping review was unfunded.