Infant position in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation

Several body positions other than standard supine position have been used in patients undergoing intensive care for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers of the skin, contractures or ankylosis and for improving the patient's well being. In patients from different age groups undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV), it has been observed that particular positions such as prone position may improve some respiratory parameters. Benefits from these positions have not been clearly defined in Neonatology, a field where it is common that patients require mechanical ventilation sometimes during extended time periods.

To assess the effects on both short and long-term outcomes of different positioning of newborn infants receiving MV.

Databases searched (up to January 2002) were the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002). Hand searches of proceedings of the Society for Pediatric Research from 1990 to January 2002 were used to identify unpublished studies.

Randomised or quasi randomised clinical trials comparing different positions in newborns receiving mechanical ventilation.

Three independent and unblinded reviewers assessed the trials for inclusion in the review and extracted the data. Data were double-checked and entered into the Review Manager software.

Ten trials involving 164 infants were included in this review. Several positions were compared: prone vs. supine, prone vs. lateral right, lateral right vs. supine, lateral left vs. supine, lateral right vs. lateral left and good lung dependent vs. good lung uppermost. Apart from one of the two studies that compared lateral right vs. lateral left positions, all the included studies had a crossover design. Comparing prone vs. supine position, an increase in arterial P02 in the prone position of between 2.75 and 9.72 mm Hg (95%CI) was observed (one trial). When % hemoglobin oxygen saturation was measured with pulse oximetry, improvement in the prone position was from 1.17 to 4.36% (typical effect based on four trials). It was not possible to establish whether this effect remained once the intervention was stopped. Negative effects from the interventions were not described, although this issue was not studied enough. Effects of position on other outcomes were not statistically significant; however, these cannot be excluded considering the small numbers that were studied.

The prone position was found to slightly improve the oxygenation in neonates undergoing mechanical ventilation. However, we found no evidence concerning whether particular body positions during mechanical ventilation of the neonate are effective in producing sustained and clinically relevant improvements.