Purpose: We assessed feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO 2 R) to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation (V T 4 mL/kg and P PLAT ≤ 25 cmH 2 O) 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 PaCO 2 not increasing more than 20% from baseline, and arterial pH > 7.30. Severe adverse events (SAE) and ECCO 2 R-related adverse events (ECCO 2 R-AE) were reported to an independent data and safety monitoring board. We used lower CO 2 extraction and higher CO 2 extraction devices (membrane lung cross-sectional area 0.59 vs. 1.30 m 2 ; 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. ECCO 2 R was maintained for 5 [3–8] days. Six SAEs were reported; two of them were attributed to ECCO 2 R (brain hemorrhage and pneumothorax). ECCO 2 R-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 ECCO 2 R to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation was feasible. A randomized clinical trial is required to assess the overall benefits and harms. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02282657.

Feasibility and safety of extracorporeal CO 2 removal to enhance protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: the SUPERNOVA study

Fanelli V.;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO 2 R) to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation (V T 4 mL/kg and P PLAT ≤ 25 cmH 2 O) 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 PaCO 2 not increasing more than 20% from baseline, and arterial pH > 7.30. Severe adverse events (SAE) and ECCO 2 R-related adverse events (ECCO 2 R-AE) were reported to an independent data and safety monitoring board. We used lower CO 2 extraction and higher CO 2 extraction devices (membrane lung cross-sectional area 0.59 vs. 1.30 m 2 ; 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. ECCO 2 R was maintained for 5 [3–8] days. Six SAEs were reported; two of them were attributed to ECCO 2 R (brain hemorrhage and pneumothorax). ECCO 2 R-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 ECCO 2 R to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation was feasible. A randomized clinical trial is required to assess the overall benefits and harms. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02282657.
2019
45
5
592
600
Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal; Mechanical ventilation; Ventilator-induced lung injury; Acidosis, Respiratory; Aged; Analysis of Variance; Canada; Carbon Dioxide; Europe; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Feasibility Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Adult
Combes A.; Fanelli V.; Pham T.; Ranieri V.M.; Goligher E.C.; Brodie D.; Pesenti A.; Beale R.; Brochard L.; Chiche J.-D.; Fan E.; de Backer D.; Francois G.; Ferguson N.; Laffey J.; Mercat A.; Mc Auley D.F.; Muller T.; Quintel M.; Vincent J.-L.; Taccone F.S.; Peperstraete H.; Morimont P.; Schmidt M.; Levy B.; Diehl J.-L.; Guervilly C.; Capelier G.; Vieillard-Baron A.; Messika J.; Karagiannidis C.; Moerer O.; Urbino R.; Antonelli M.; Mojoli F.; Alessandri F.; Grasselli G.; Donker D.; Ferrer R.; Slutsky J.M.A.S.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Combes2019_Article_FeasibilityAndSafetyOfExtracor.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 999.23 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
999.23 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1737962
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 62
  • Scopus 163
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 136
social impact