May 30, 2026Open Access

Awake prone positioning reduces mortality, intubation, and hospital stay in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6,164 patients

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Awake prone positioning significantly reduces mortality, intubation rates, and length of hospital stay in non-intubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, without increasing adverse events. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

Key Points

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of awake prone positioning in non-intubated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until February 2026.
Included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing awake prone positioning to usual care.
Performed a meta-analysis with 24 studies and 6,164 patients, assessing primary outcomes of mortality, intubation, and length of hospital stay.
Awake prone positioning significantly reduced mortality (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42–0.86, p = 0.005).
It also significantly decreased intubation rates (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.79, p < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (MD = − 0.70 days, 95% CI − 1.07 to − 0.32, p = 0.0003).
Invasive mechanical ventilation was reduced (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.31–0.58, p < 0.00001) with no significant differences in adverse events.

Abstract

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and often requires advanced respiratory support. Awake prone positioning (APP) has emerged as a simple, low-cost intervention to improve oxygenation in non-intubated patients; however, its clinical effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of awake prone positioning in non-intubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception to February 2026. Randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies evaluating APP versus usual care were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, intubation, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, escalation of respiratory support, time to invasive ventilation, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2 for randomized trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Twenty-four studies involving 6,164 patients were included. APP significantly reduced mortality (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42–0.86, p = 0.005), intubation (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60–0.79, p < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (MD = − 0.70 days, 95% CI − 1.07 to − 0.32, p = 0.0003), ICU stay (MD = − 2.84 days, 95% CI − 5.44 to − 0.24, p = 0.03), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.31–0.58, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed in ICU admission, escalation of respiratory support, or adverse events. Awake prone positioning was associated with improved clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality, intubation, and hospital stay, without an apparent increase in adverse events. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the observed heterogeneity and potential publication bias. Further high-quality randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper