Dataset Information

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) in COPD and ARDS patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure. A retrospective case-control study

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

Treatment of severe hypercapnic respiratory failure (HRF) has some challenges in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially when lung protective ventilation (LPV) strategies are required. Extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) therapy is an emerging option to manage hypercapnia while allowing LPV in these cases. However, further data on ECCO2R use is still needed to make clear recommendations.

Materials and methods

This study was conducted on patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2019. The medical records were retrospectively scanned in institutional software database. Patients who received invasive mechanic ventilation (iMV) support due to severe HRF related to COPD or ARDS were included in the analyses. Patients were grouped according to treatment approaches as that ECCO2R therapy in addition to conventional treatments and conventional treatments alone (controls). Groups were compared for 28-day survival, iMV duration, and length of stay (LOS).

Results

ECCO2R therapy was noted in 75 of the cases among included 395 patients (COPD n = 256, ARDS n = 139) out of scanned 1715 medical records. The survival rate of ECCO2R patients was 68% and significantly higher than 58% survival rate of controls (p = 0.025), with relative risk reduction (RRR) = 0.16, absolute risk reduction (ARR)= 0.10, number need to treat (NNT) = 10, and odds ratio (OR) = 1.5. In addition, iMV duration (12.8 ± 2.6 vs. 17.1 ± 4.9 days, p = 0.007) and LOS (16.9 ± 4.1 vs. 18.9 ± 5.5 days, p = 0.032) were significantly shorter than controls. Repeated measure analyses showed that LPV settings were successfully provided by 72 h of ECCO2R therapy. Subgroup analyses according to diagnoses of COPD and ARDS also favored ECCO2R.

Conclusion

ECCO2R therapy significantly improved survival, iMV duration and LOS in patients with severe HRF due to COPD or ARDS, and successfully provided LPV approaches. Further studies are needed to assess promising benefits of ECCO2R therapy.

SUBMITTER: Inal V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569780 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mechanical ventilation (MV) represents a lifesaving treatment for patients with respiratory failure, but it could be harmful through the development of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), protective MV strategies with low tidal volume to minimize VILI have been demonstrated to reduce lung injury and mortality. However, they can be limited by the emergence of uncontrolled hypercapnia. Similarly, in COPD patients, noninvasive MV failure often is associated with a progressive rise in arterial CO2 and need for endotracheal intubation, with higher risk of hospital mortality. Minimally invasive extracorporeal CO2 removal systems (ECCO2R) theoretically can remove the entire amount of the CO2 produced in the body per minute. In ARDS patients, ECCO2R may further reduce the risk of VILI ensuring ultraprotective MV and avoiding hypercapnia. In patients with exacerbation of COPD, ECCO2R may help to avoid intubation or facilitate weaning from invasive MV. In intensive care unit, concomitant renal and respiratory failure with MV is one of the strongest risk factors for hospital mortality. Combining ECCO2R and renal replacement therapy may support respiratory and renal functions and limit the side effects of MV. However, the need for systemic anticoagulation and the related risk of bleeding still represent a concern for a wider application of ECCO2R devices. In conclusion, ECCO2R is an effective support therapy to MV to limit its invasiveness and side effects, but its efficacy and safety must be proven in well-designed clinical trials. Objectives This chapter will:1 Explain the physiology of CO2 removal during extracorporeal support.2 Describe potential clinical applications of extracorporeal CO2 removal systems (ECCO2R) support therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as well as in those with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common clinical critical syndrome with substantial mortality. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) has been proposed for the treatment of ARF. However, whether ECCO2R could provide a survival advantage for patients with ARF is still controversial.MethodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database) were searched from inception to 30 April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that examined the following outcomes were included: mortality, length of hospital and ICU stay, intubation and tracheotomy rate, mechanical ventilation days, ventilator-free days (VFDs), respiratory parameters, and reported adverse events.ResultsFour RCTs and five observational studies including 1173 participants with ARF due to COPD or ARDS were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analyses of related studies showed no significant difference in overall mortality between ECCO2R and control group, neither in RCTs targeted ARDS or acute hypoxic respiratory failure patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.32, p = 0.70, I2 =0.0%), nor in studies targeted patients with ARF secondary to COPD (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11, p = 0.19, I2 =0.0%). A shorter duration of ICU stay in the ECCO2R group was only obtained in observational studies (WMD -4.25, p < 0.01), and ECCO2R was associated with a longer length of hospital stay (p = 0.02). ECCO2R was associated with lower intubation rate (p < 0.01) and tracheotomy rate (p = 0.01), and shorter mechanical ventilation days (p < 0.01) in comparison to control group in ARF patients with COPD. In addition, an improvement in pH (p = 0.01), PaO2 (p = 0.01), respiratory rate (p < 0.01), and PaCO2 (p = 0.04) was also observed in patients with COPD exacerbations by ECCO2R therapy. However, the ECCO2R-related complication rate was high in six of the included studies.ConclusionsOur findings from both RCTs and observational studies did not confirm a significant beneficial effect of ECCO2R therapy on mortality. A shorter length of ICU stay in the ECCO2R group was only obtained in observational studies, and ECCO2R was associated with a longer length of hospital stay. ECCO2R was associated with lower intubation rate and tracheotomy rate, and shorter mechanical ventilation days in ARF patients with COPD. And an improvement in pH, PaO2, respiratory rate and PaCO2 was observed in the ECCO2R group. However, outcomes largely relied on data from observational studies targeted patients with ARF secondary to COPD, thus further larger high-quality RCTs are desirable to strengthen the evidence on the efficacy and benefits of ECCO2R for patients with ARF.Key messagesECCO2R therapy did not confirm a significant beneficial effect on mortality.ECCO2R was associated with lower intubation and tracheotomy rate, and shorter mechanical ventilation days in patients with ARF secondary to COPD.An improvement in pH, PaO2, respiratory rate, and PaCO2 was observed in ECCO2R group in patients with COPD exacerbations.Evidence for the future application of ECCO2R therapy for patients with ARF. The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022295174).

Project description:Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to have significant mortality and morbidity. The only intervention proven to reduce mortality is the use of lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies, although such a strategy may lead to problematic hypercapnia. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO?R) devices allow uncoupling of ventilation from oxygenation, thereby removing carbon dioxide and facilitating lower tidal volume ventilation. We performed a systematic review to assess efficacy, complication rates, and utility of ECCO?R devices. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and case series with 10 or more patients. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde), and ISI Web of Science, in addition to grey literature and clinical trials registries. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers against predefined criteria and agreement was reached by consensus. Outcomes of interest included mortality, intensive care and hospital lengths of stay, respiratory parameters and complications. The review included 14 studies with 495 patients (two RCTs and 12 observational studies). Arteriovenous ECCO?R was used in seven studies, and venovenous ECCO?R in seven studies. Available evidence suggests no mortality benefit to ECCO?R, although post hoc analysis of data from the most recent RCT showed an improvement in ventilator-free days in more severe ARDS. Organ failure-free days or ICU stay have not been shown to decrease with ECCOvR. Carbon dioxide removal was widely demonstrated as feasible, facilitating the use of lower tidal volume ventilation. Complication rates varied greatly across the included studies, representing technological advances. There was a general paucity of high-quality data and significant variation in both practice and technology used among studies, which confounded analysis. ECCO?R is a rapidly evolving technology and is an efficacious treatment to enable protective lung ventilation. Evidence for a positive effect on mortality and other important clinical outcomes is lacking. Rapid technological advances have led to major changes in these devices and together with variation in study design have limited applicability of analysis. Further well-designed adequately powered RCTs are needed.

Project description:ObjectivesExtracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO 2 R) devices are effective in reducing hypercapnia and mechanical ventilation support but have not been shown to reduce mortality. This may be due to case selection, device performance, familiarity, or the management. The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a single ECCO 2 R device (Hemolung) in patients with acute respiratory failure and identify variables associated with survival that could help case selection in clinical practice as well as future research.DesignMulticenter, multinational, retrospective review.SettingData from the Hemolung Registry between April 2013 and June 2021, where 57 ICUs contributed deidentified data.PatientsPatients with acute respiratory failure treated with the Hemolung. The characteristics of patients who survived to ICU discharge were compared with those who died. Multivariable logistical regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with ICU survival.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf the 159 patients included, 65 (41%) survived to ICU discharge. The survival was highest in status asthmaticus (86%), followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (52%) and COVID-19 ARDS (31%). All patients had a significant reduction in Pa co2 and improvement in pH with reduction in mechanical ventilation support. Patients who died were older, had a lower Pa o2 :F io2 (P/F) and higher use of adjunctive therapies. There was no difference in the complications between patients who survived to those who died. Multivariable regression analysis showed non-COVID-19 ARDS, age less than 65 years, and P/F at initiation of ECCO 2 R to be independently associated with survival to ICU discharge (P/F 100-200 vs <100: odds ratio, 6.57; 95% CI, 2.03-21.33).ConclusionsSignificant improvement in hypercapnic acidosis along with reduction in ventilation supports was noted within 4 hours of initiating ECCO 2 R. Non-COVID-19 ARDS, age, and P/F at commencement of ECCO 2 R were independently associated with survival.