Download PDFPDF

Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO2 extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Response to Laura W Lund, and Jeremy D Kimmel ALung Technologies January 16, 2020
    • Vito Marco Ranieri, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola
    • Other Contributors:

    The SUPERNOVA trial was a prospective observational phase II study supported by an unrestricted grant from three companies (Alung, Maquet, and Novalung) and by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The three companies provided equipment and covered costs for data monitoring, site visits, and insurance fees. The grant (€171,000) was made available to ESICM that supported data collection and analysis, and all administrative costs. As owner of the data, ESICM appointed the two principal investigators (AC and VMR) and the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (Jukka Takala, Chair). The study included 95 patients. The proportion of patients who achieved ultra-protective settings by 24 hours was 82%. Number of patients that experienced severe and ECCO2R-related adverse events was 2 (2%) and 37 (39%)1. Retrospective analysis of these data showed that (a) efficacy of ECCO2R to facilitate further reduction of tidal volume was lower with smaller artificial lungs and running at lower blood flow than with larger artificial lungs and running at a higher blood flow2; (b) haemolysis and bleeding was higher with the former than with the latter2; (c) applying these data to a previously described theoretical model3 we predicted that incorporating higher CO2 removal rates as factors to design randomized clinical trial might substantially reduce screening and sample size requirements4.
    In her letter, Dr Lund, expressed several concerns about these findin...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Response to "Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO2 extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study" (Combes et al,, 2019 Dec;74(12))
    • Laura W Lund, Vice President of Clinical Science ALung Technologies
    • Other Contributors:
      • Jeremy D Kimmel, Vice President of New Technology

    Dear Editor,

    We read with great interest the recently published article in Thorax by Combes and colleagues titled “Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO2 extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study” [1]. In this article, the authors present brief, post-hoc analyses of safety and efficacy data derived from the SUPERNOVA trial, a single-arm, multi-center, pilot study assessing the feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to facilitate ultra-protective ventilation in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [2]. The study was conducted at 23 centers, each of which used one of three different ECCO2R devices.

    We wish to communicate significant concerns regarding improper categorization of ECCO2R device performance as well as important study limitations impacting interpretation and value of the presented data. The differentiation between devices based on the terms “higher CO2 extraction” and “lower CO2 extraction” is incorrect based on supporting evidence and engineering principles summarized in this letter. In addition, safety data was presented and statistically compared without including available associated data that would bring in to question the implications of the analyses. As the manufacturer of one of the ECCO2R devices used in the SUPERNOVA pilot study, we are strong believers in the life-saving potential of ECCO2R technology and its...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Both authors are employed by ALung Technologies, the manufacturer of one of the medical devices used in the Supernova study, specifically, the Hemolung Respiratory Assist System.