Alain Combes1, Vito Fanelli2, Tai Pham3, V Marco Ranieri4. 1. Institute of Cardio-metabolism and Nutrition, and Service de médecine intensive-réanimation, Institut de Cardiologie, APHP Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS_1166-ICAN, Paris, France. 2. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 3. Keenan Research Center of the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. m.ranieri@unibo.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation (VT 4 mL/kg and PPLAT ≤ 25 cmH2O) in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Prospective multicenter international phase 2 study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ultra-protective ventilation with PaCO2 not increasing more than 20% from baseline, and arterial pH > 7.30. Severe adverse events (SAE) and ECCO2R-related adverse events (ECCO2R-AE) were reported to an independent data and safety monitoring board. We used lower CO2 extraction and higher CO2 extraction devices (membrane lung cross-sectional area 0.59 vs. 1.30 m2; flow 300-500 mL/min vs. 800-1000 mL/min, respectively). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled. The proportion of patients who achieved ultra-protective settings by 8 h and 24 h was 78% (74 out of 95 patients; 95% confidence interval 68-89%) and 82% (78 out of 95 patients; 95% confidence interval 76-88%), respectively. ECCO2R was maintained for 5 [3-8] days. Six SAEs were reported; two of them were attributed to ECCO2R (brain hemorrhage and pneumothorax). ECCO2R-AEs were reported in 39% of the patients. A total of 69 patients (73%) were alive at day 28. Fifty-nine patients (62%) were alive at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECCO2R to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation was feasible. A randomized clinical trial is required to assess the overall benefits and harms. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02282657.
PURPOSE: We assessed feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation (VT 4 mL/kg and PPLAT ≤ 25 cmH2O) in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Prospective multicenter international phase 2 study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ultra-protective ventilation with PaCO2 not increasing more than 20% from baseline, and arterial pH > 7.30. Severe adverse events (SAE) and ECCO2R-related adverse events (ECCO2R-AE) were reported to an independent data and safety monitoring board. We used lower CO2 extraction and higher CO2 extraction devices (membrane lung cross-sectional area 0.59 vs. 1.30 m2; flow 300-500 mL/min vs. 800-1000 mL/min, respectively). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled. The proportion of patients who achieved ultra-protective settings by 8 h and 24 h was 78% (74 out of 95 patients; 95% confidence interval 68-89%) and 82% (78 out of 95 patients; 95% confidence interval 76-88%), respectively. ECCO2R was maintained for 5 [3-8] days. Six SAEs were reported; two of them were attributed to ECCO2R (brain hemorrhage and pneumothorax). ECCO2R-AEs were reported in 39% of the patients. A total of 69 patients (73%) were alive at day 28. Fifty-nine patients (62%) were alive at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECCO2R to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation was feasible. A randomized clinical trial is required to assess the overall benefits and harms. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02282657.
Authors: Eleonora Duscio; Francesco Cipulli; Francesco Vasques; Francesca Collino; Francesca Rapetti; Federica Romitti; Tim Behnemann; Julia Niewenhuys; Tommaso Tonetti; Iacopo Pasticci; Francesco Vassalli; Verena Reupke; Onnen Moerer; Michael Quintel; Luciano Gattinoni Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pier Paolo Terragni; Giulio Rosboch; Andrea Tealdi; Eleonora Corno; Eleonora Menaldo; Ottavio Davini; Giovanni Gandini; Peter Herrmann; Luciana Mascia; Michel Quintel; Arthur S Slutsky; Luciano Gattinoni; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-10-12 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Salvatore Grasso; Tania Stripoli; Palma Mazzone; Marco Pezzuto; Luca Lacitignola; Paola Centonze; Alessandro Guarracino; Cosimo Esposito; Peter Herrmann; Michael Quintel; Paolo Trerotoli; Francesco Bruno; Antonio Crovace; Francesco Staffieri Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Niall D Ferguson; Antonio M Pesenti; V Marco Ranieri; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Nadia Aissaoui; Thomas Bein; Gilles Capellier; Heidi J Dalton; Jean-Luc Diehl; Stefan Kluge; Daniel F McAuley; Matthieu Schmidt; Arthur S Slutsky; Samir Jaber Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: J C Richard; S Marque; A Gros; M Muller; G Prat; G Beduneau; J P Quenot; J Dellamonica; R Tapponnier; E Soum; L Bitker; J Richecoeur Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Craig H Selzman; Jason A Bartos; Angela P Presson; Zhining Ou; Yeonjung Jo; Lance B Becker; Scott T Youngquist; Ravi R Thiagarajan; M Austin Johnson; Sung-Min Cho; Peter Rycus; Heather T Keenan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 6.251