BACKGROUND: Hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with COPD frequently requires mechanical ventilatory support. Extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) techniques have not been systematically evaluated in these patients. METHODS: This is a pilot study of a novel ECCO2R device that utilizes a single venous catheter with high CO2 removal rates at low blood flows. Twenty hypercapnic patients with COPD received ECCO2R. Group 1 (n = 7) consisted of patients receiving noninvasive ventilation with a high likelihood of requiring invasive ventilation, group 2 (n = 2) consisted of patients who could not be weaned from noninvasive ventilation, and group 3 (n = 11) consisted of patients on invasive ventilation who had failed attempts to wean. RESULTS: The device was well tolerated, with complications and rates similar to those seen with central venous catheterization. Blood flow through the system was 430.5 ± 73.7 mL/min, and ECCO2R was 82.5 ± 15.6 mL/min and did not change significantly with time. Invasive ventilation was avoided in all patients in group 1 and both patients in group 2 were weaned; PaCO2 decreased significantly (P < .003) with application of the device from 78.9 ± 16.8 mm Hg to 65.9 ± 11.5 mm Hg. In group 3, three patients were weaned, while the level of invasive ventilatory support was reduced in three patients. One patient in group 3 died due to a retroperitoneal bleed following catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: This single-catheter, low-flow ECCO2R system provided clinically useful levels of CO2 removal in these patients with COPD. The system appears to be a potentially valuable additional modality for the treatment of hypercapnic respiratory failure.
BACKGROUND:Hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with COPD frequently requires mechanical ventilatory support. Extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) techniques have not been systematically evaluated in these patients. METHODS: This is a pilot study of a novel ECCO2R device that utilizes a single venous catheter with high CO2 removal rates at low blood flows. Twenty hypercapnic patients with COPD received ECCO2R. Group 1 (n = 7) consisted of patients receiving noninvasive ventilation with a high likelihood of requiring invasive ventilation, group 2 (n = 2) consisted of patients who could not be weaned from noninvasive ventilation, and group 3 (n = 11) consisted of patients on invasive ventilation who had failed attempts to wean. RESULTS: The device was well tolerated, with complications and rates similar to those seen with central venous catheterization. Blood flow through the system was 430.5 ± 73.7 mL/min, and ECCO2R was 82.5 ± 15.6 mL/min and did not change significantly with time. Invasive ventilation was avoided in all patients in group 1 and both patients in group 2 were weaned; PaCO2 decreased significantly (P < .003) with application of the device from 78.9 ± 16.8 mm Hg to 65.9 ± 11.5 mm Hg. In group 3, three patients were weaned, while the level of invasive ventilatory support was reduced in three patients. One patient in group 3 died due to a retroperitoneal bleed following catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: This single-catheter, low-flow ECCO2R system provided clinically useful levels of CO2 removal in these patients with COPD. The system appears to be a potentially valuable additional modality for the treatment of hypercapnic respiratory failure.
Authors: L Gattinoni; A Pesenti; D Mascheroni; R Marcolin; R Fumagalli; F Rossi; G Iapichino; G Romagnoli; L Uziel; A Agostoni Journal: JAMA Date: 1986-08-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Divay Chandra; Jason A Stamm; Brian Taylor; Rose Mary Ramos; Lewis Satterwhite; Jerry A Krishnan; David Mannino; Frank C Sciurba; Fernando Holguín Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A F Connors; N V Dawson; C Thomas; F E Harrell; N Desbiens; W J Fulkerson; P Kussin; P Bellamy; L Goldman; W A Knaus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: A H Morris; C J Wallace; R L Menlove; T P Clemmer; J F Orme; L K Weaver; N C Dean; F Thomas; T D East; N L Pace; M R Suchyta; E Beck; M Bombino; D F Sittig; S Böhm; B Hoffmann; H Becks; S Butler; J Pearl; B Rasmusson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: L Gattinoni; A Agostoni; A Pesenti; A Pelizzola; G P Rossi; M Langer; S Vesconi; L Uziel; U Fox; F Longoni; T Kolobow; G Damia Journal: Lancet Date: 1980-08-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bindu Akkanti; Keshava Rajagopal; Kirti P Patel; Sangeeta Aravind; Emmanuel Nunez-Centanu; Rahat Hussain; Farshad Raissi Shabari; Wayne L Hofstetter; Ara A Vaporciyan; Igor S Banjac; Biswajit Kar; Igor D Gregoric; Pranav Loyalka Journal: J Extra Corpor Technol Date: 2017-06
Authors: Stephan Braune; Annekatrin Sieweke; Franz Brettner; Thomas Staudinger; Michael Joannidis; Serge Verbrugge; Daniel Frings; Axel Nierhaus; Karl Wegscheider; Stefan Kluge Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 17.440