H. Dupont et al., Short-term effect of inhaled nitric oxide and prone positioning on gas exchange in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, CRIT CARE M, 28(2), 2000, pp. 304-308
Objective: To compare the short-term effects of inhaled nitric oxide (NO) a
nd prone positioning in improving oxygenation in acute respiratory distress
syndrome (ARDS).
Methods: Charts of consecutive ARDS patients (lung injury score >2) during
a 2-yr period, tested for both inhaled NO and prone positioning efficacy we
re retrospectively reviewed. Variations in the Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio induced
by inhaled NO and prone positioning were evaluated.
Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-seven patients (age, 42 +/- 17 yrs) w
ere included. Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 45 +/- 14, Mortality
rate in the intensive care unit was 63%. The causes of ARDS were pneumonia
(n = 14), extra-lung infection (n = 5), and noninfectious systemic inflamm
atory response syndrome (n = 8), Lung injury score was 2.7 +/- 0.3. At base
line, before the initiation of inhaled NO, the Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio was 97 /- 46 torr and before prone positioning, 92 +/- 26 torr, Variations in the
Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio were lower at start of NO therapy (11 +/- 4 ppm) than t
hat observed at prone positioning initiation (23 +/- 31 vs. 62 +/- 78 torr,
p < .05). An increase in variations in the Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio of >15 torr
was associated with prone positioning in 16 patients (59%) and with NO inh
alation in 13 patients (48%) (not significant). An increase in variations i
n the Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio of >15 torr was associated with both techniques i
n only six patients (22%). There was no correlation between the response to
prone positioning and the response to inhaled NO (r(2) = .005; p = .73).
Conclusions: Prone positioning improves hypoxemia significantly better than
does inhaled NO. The response to one technique is not predictive of the re
sponse to the other technique.