Skip to main content


We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Commentary
  • Open Access

Why is prone positioning so unpopular?

Journal of Intensive Care20164:70

  • Received: 14 October 2016
  • Accepted: 19 November 2016
  • Published:


Recent studies have shown acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to be underdiagnosed and inadequately treated, as evidenced by underutilization of low-tidal volume ventilation. Despite a proven survival benefit in patients with severe ARDS, studies have also shown underutilization of prone positioning. Many questions persist as to the reasons for prone positioning’s unpopularity. Additional studies are required to uncover the causes of this prone positioning underutilization phenomenon.


Recently, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort, “The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure” (LUNG SAFE) showed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to be widely unrecognized and inadequately treated [1]. Shockingly, the study reported that clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3 in mild to 78.5% in severe ARDS, while less than two-thirds of ARDS patients received tidal volumes of 8 ml/kg or less, and only 16.3% with severe ARDS were prone positioned [1]. After reviewing these results, I initially focused on the surprisingly poor utilization rate of low-tidal volume ventilation, an intervention repeatedly proven to have significant survival benefit and deemed by most to be a cornerstone in ARDS management [2]. Even more alarming than this suboptimal use of low-tidal volumes, however, is the vast underutilization of prone positioning (PP) for patients with severe ARDS. Just over 3 years ago the Proning Severe ARDS Patients (PROSEVA) study investigators showed in their multicenter prospective randomized control trial of 466 (237 prone vs. 229 supine) patients with severe ARDS (defined as a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 150 mmHg) that PP definitively reduced mortality by 50% (28-day mortality reduction of 32.8% in supine group to 16.0% in prone group) [3]. An intervention that reduces mortality by 50%, but is only used in 16.3% of appropriate patients, begs the question of why. Just imagine the uproar if only 16.4% of patients with CHF with reduced ejection fraction and NYHA III–IV symptoms were prescribed with aldosterone antagonists, a therapy proven to reduce all-cause mortality by 30%, or only 16.4% of patients with moderate or severe COPD were prescribed with long-acting anticholinergics (i.e., tiotroprium), a universally prescribed medication that has only shown statistically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and not survival; my guess is that these dismal utilization rates would be quickly addressed [4, 5]. Since reviewing the PP literature, I have conversed with colleagues regarding PP’s unpopularity and underutilization, with the majority of their responses focusing on PP’s perceived cumbersomeness, burdensome need for additional human resources, and higher rate of adverse events (i.e., pressure ulcers, accidental extubations, and tracheal tube displacement). Despite this anecdotal majority focus on PP’s onerousness and higher complication rate, scrutiny of the literature suggests otherwise [610]. Countless studies, meta-analyses, and reports have continuously shown notions that PP is difficult to initiate, burdensome to maintain, and more apt to cause complications unfounded [1113]. In fact, Athota et al. reviewed various institutional experiences with PP and highlighted its facility and ease of use, while a recent Cochrane review found no convincing evidence of harm from universal application of PP. Thus, many paramount questions regarding PP’s unfavorable reputation persist with a couple being: (1) why is PP so underutilized in the appropriate setting, and how can we elucidate the causes of this underutilization phenomenon? (2) Prior to making firm conclusions about PP’s efficacy, it would be prudent to conduct multicenter randomized control trials testing PP’s ability to reduce mortality. Why have these studies not been performed? (3) Once the etiologies for PP’s underuse are determined, what interventions can be implemented to improve the widespread adoption and utilization rate of PP, and how can we test the efficacy of these interventions?


PP has enormous potential to save lives in patients with severe ARDS. Now is the time to focus on ways to address and improve the PP underutilization phenomenon so that more than 16.4% of patients can benefit from this lifesaving intervention.






Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author’s contributions

JC conceptualized, designed, and drafted the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA


  1. 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;315:788–800.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Laffey JG, Kavanagh BP. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:812. author reply 813-814.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Tashkin DP, Celli B, Senn S, et al. A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1543–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Abroug F, Ouanes-Besbes L, Dachraoui F, et al. An updated study-level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on proning in ARDS and acute lung injury. Crit Care. 2011;15:R6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Alsaghir AH, Martin CM. Effect of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:603–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Athota KP, Millar D, Branson RD, et al. A practical approach to the use of prone therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2014;8:453–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloomfield R, Noble DW, Sudlow A. Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD008095. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008095.pub2.Google Scholar
  10. Scholten EL, Beitler JR, Prisk GK, et al. Treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome with prone positioning. Chest. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Drahnak DM, Custer N. Prone positioning of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Nurse. 2015;35:29–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Luedike P, Totzeck M, Rammos C, et al. One-year experience with an acute respiratory distress syndrome standard operating procedure on intensive care unit. J Crit Care. 2015;30:1114–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Park SY, Kim HJ, Yoo KH, et al. The efficacy and safety of prone positioning in adults patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:356–67.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar


© The Author(s). 2016