Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO2 extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study
  1. Alain Combes1,
  2. Tommaso Tonetti2,
  3. Vito Fanelli3,
  4. Tai Pham4,
  5. Antonio Pesenti5,6,
  6. Jordi Mancebo7,
  7. Daniel Brodie8,
  8. V Marco Ranieri9
  1. 1Hôpital Universitaire Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, Île-de-France, France
  2. 2Department of Anesthesiology, Georg-August-Universitat Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  3. 3Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy
  4. 4Hôpital Tenon, Unité de Réanimation médico-chirurgicale, Pôle Thorax Voies aériennes, Assistance Publique—Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France
  5. 5Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico-Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  6. 6Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency, La Fondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena, Milan, Italy
  7. 7Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau Institut de Recerca, Barcelona, Spain
  8. 8New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA
  9. 9Policlinico di Sant’Orsola, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Professor V Marco Ranieri, Policlinico di Sant'Orsola, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; m.ranieri{at}unibo.it

Abstract

Retrospective analysis of the SUPERNOVA trial exploring the hypothesis that efficacy and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to facilitate reduction of tidal volume (VT) to 4 mL/kg in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may differ between systems with lower (area of membrane length 0.59 m2; blood flow 300–500 mL/min) and higher (membrane area 1.30 m2; blood flow between 800 and 1000 mL/min) CO2 extraction capacity. Ninety-five patients with moderate ARDS were included (33 patients treated with lower and 62 patients treated with higher CO2 extraction devices). We found that (1) VT of 4 mL/kg was reached by 55% and 64% of patients with the lower extraction versus 90% and 92% of patients with higher extraction devices at 8 and 24 hours from baseline, respectively (p<0.001), and (2) percentage of patients experiencing episodes of ECCO2R-related haemolysis and bleeding was higher with lower than with higher extraction devices (21% vs 6%, p=0.045% and 27% vs 6%, p=0.010, respectively). Although V T of 4 mL/kg could have been obtained with all devices, this was achieved frequently and with a lower rate of adverse events by devices with higher CO2 extraction capacity.

  • acute respiratory distress syndrome
  • mechanical ventilation
  • extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal
  • ventilator-induced lung injury
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This study was supported by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.