Lorenzo Del Sorbo1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, Alberto Goffi1, George Tomlinson5,6, Tommaso Pettenuzzo1, Francesca Facchin1, Alice Vendramin1, Ewan C Goligher1,3, Marcelo Cypel1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, Arthur S Slutsky1,8, Shaf Keshavjee1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, Niall D Ferguson1,3,4,5,9, Eddy Fan1,3,4,5,9. 1. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Latner Thoracic Surgery Research Laboratories, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Keenan Research Center at the Li-Ka-Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael´s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an effective intervention to improve gas exchange in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, the mortality of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation remains high, and this may be due in part to a lack of standardized mechanical ventilation strategies aimed at further minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury. We tested whether a continuous positive airway pressure ventilation strategy mitigates ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, compared with current ventilation practice that employs tidal ventilation with limited driving pressure. We used plasma biomarkers as a surrogate outcome for ventilator-induced lung injury. DESIGN: Randomized crossover physiologic study. SETTING: Single-center ICU. PATIENTS: Ten patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome supported on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. INTERVENTIONS: The study included four phases. After receiving pressure-controlled ventilation with driving pressure of 10 cm H2O for 1 hour (phase 1), patients were randomly assigned to receive first either pressure-controlled ventilation 20 cm H2O for 2 hours (phase 2) or continuous positive airway pressure for 2 hours (phase 3), and then crossover to the other phase for 2 hours; during phase 4 ventilation settings returned to baseline (pressure-controlled ventilation 10 cm H2O) for 4 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a linear relationship between the change in driving pressure and the plasma concentration of interleukin-6, soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, interleukin-1ra, tumor necrosis factor alpha, surfactant protein D, and interleukin-10. CONCLUSIONS: Ventilator-induced lung injury may occur in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation despite the delivery of volume- and pressure-limited mechanical ventilation. Reducing driving pressure to zero may provide more protective mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. However, the risks versus benefits of such an approach need to be confirmed in studies that are designed to test patient centered outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an effective intervention to improve gas exchange in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, the mortality of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation remains high, and this may be due in part to a lack of standardized mechanical ventilation strategies aimed at further minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury. We tested whether a continuous positive airway pressure ventilation strategy mitigates ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, compared with current ventilation practice that employs tidal ventilation with limited driving pressure. We used plasma biomarkers as a surrogate outcome for ventilator-induced lung injury. DESIGN: Randomized crossover physiologic study. SETTING: Single-center ICU. PATIENTS: Ten patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome supported on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. INTERVENTIONS: The study included four phases. After receiving pressure-controlled ventilation with driving pressure of 10 cm H2O for 1 hour (phase 1), patients were randomly assigned to receive first either pressure-controlled ventilation 20 cm H2O for 2 hours (phase 2) or continuous positive airway pressure for 2 hours (phase 3), and then crossover to the other phase for 2 hours; during phase 4 ventilation settings returned to baseline (pressure-controlled ventilation 10 cm H2O) for 4 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a linear relationship between the change in driving pressure and the plasma concentration of interleukin-6, soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, interleukin-1ra, tumor necrosis factor alpha, surfactant protein D, and interleukin-10. CONCLUSIONS: Ventilator-induced lung injury may occur in acute respiratory distress syndromepatients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation despite the delivery of volume- and pressure-limited mechanical ventilation. Reducing driving pressure to zero may provide more protective mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndromepatients supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. However, the risks versus benefits of such an approach need to be confirmed in studies that are designed to test patient centered outcomes.
Authors: Mirko Belliato; Francesco Epis; Luca Cremascoli; Fiorenza Ferrari; Maria Giovanna Quattrone; Christoph Fisser; Maximilian Valentin Malfertheiner; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Matteo Di Nardo; Lars Mikael Broman; Roberto Lorusso Journal: Membranes (Basel) Date: 2021-01-02
Authors: Peter T Graf; Christoph Boesing; Isabel Brumm; Jonas Biehler; Kei Wieland Müller; Manfred Thiel; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco; Thomas Luecke; Joerg Krebs Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: Francesco Zadek; Jonah Rubin; Luigi Grassi; Daniel Van Den Kroonenberg; Grant Larson; Martin Capriles; Roberta De Santis Santiago; Gaetano Florio; David A Imber; Edward A Bittner; Kathryn A Hibbert; Alex Legassey; Jeliene LaRocque; Gaston Cudemus-Deseda; Aranya Bagchi; Jerome Crowley; Kenneth Shelton; Robert Kacmarek; Lorenzo Berra Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-06-29