TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility and safety of extracorporeal CO 2 removal to enhance protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome
T2 - the SUPERNOVA study
AU - On behalf of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Trials Group and the “Strategy of Ultra-Protective lung ventilation with Extracorporeal CO2 Removal for New-Onset moderate to severe ARDS” (SUPERNOVA) investigators
AU - Combes, Alain
AU - Fanelli, Vito
AU - Pham, Tai
AU - Ranieri, V. Marco
AU - Goligher, Ewan C.
AU - Brodie, Daniel
AU - Pesenti, Antonio
AU - Beale, Richard
AU - Brochard, Laurent
AU - Chiche, Jean Daniel
AU - Fan, Eddy
AU - de Backer, Daniel
AU - Francois, Guy
AU - Ferguson, Niall
AU - Laffey, John
AU - Mercat, Alain
AU - Mc Auley, Daniel F.
AU - Müller, Thomas
AU - Quintel, Michael
AU - Vincent, Jean Louis
AU - Taccone, Fabio Silvio
AU - Peperstraete, Harlinde
AU - Morimont, Philippe
AU - Schmidt, Matthieu
AU - Levy, Bruno
AU - Diehl, Jean Luc
AU - Guervilly, Christophe
AU - Capelier, Gilles
AU - Vieillard-Baron, Antoine
AU - Messika, Jonathan
AU - Karagiannidis, Christian
AU - Moerer, Onnen
AU - Urbino, Rosario
AU - Antonelli, Massimo
AU - Mojoli, Francesco
AU - Alessandri, Francesco
AU - Grasselli, Giacomo
AU - Donker, Dirk
AU - Ferrer, Ricard
AU - Slutsky, Jordi Mancebo Arthur S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2019/5/1
Y1 - 2019/5/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Acute respiratory distress syndrome
KW - Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal
KW - Mechanical ventilation
KW - Ventilator-induced lung injury
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85064889576
U2 - 10.1007/s00134-019-05567-4
DO - 10.1007/s00134-019-05567-4
M3 - Article
SN - 0342-4642
VL - 45
SP - 592
EP - 600
JO - Intensive Care Medicine
JF - Intensive Care Medicine
IS - 5
ER -