Dataset Information

A randomised controlled trial of non-invasive ventilation compared with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for acute hypercapnic exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are typically managed with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The impact of low-flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO₂R) on outcome in these patients has not been explored in randomised trials.

Methods

Open-label randomised trial comparing NIV (NIV arm) with ECCO₂R (ECCO₂R arm) in patients with AECOPD at high risk of NIV failure (pH < 7.30 after ≥ 1 h of NIV). The primary endpoint was time to cessation of NIV. Secondary outcomes included device tolerance and complications, changes in arterial blood gases, hospital survival.

Results

Eighteen patients (median age 67.5, IQR (61.5-71) years; median GOLD stage 3 were enrolled (nine in each arm). Time to NIV discontinuation was shorter with ECCO₂R (7:00 (6:18-8:30) vs 24:30 (18:15-49:45) h, p = 0.004). Arterial pH was higher with ECCO₂R at 4 h post-randomisation (7.35 (7.31-7.37) vs 7.25 (7.21-7.26), p < 0.001). Partial pressure of arterial CO₂ (PaCO₂) was significantly lower with ECCO₂R at 4 h (6.8 (6.2-7.15) vs 8.3 (7.74-9.3) kPa; p = 0.024). Dyspnoea and comfort both rapidly improved with commencement of ECCO₂R. There were no severe or life-threatening complications in the study population. There were no episodes of major bleeding or red blood cell transfusion in either group. ICU and hospital length of stay were longer with ECCO₂R, and there was no difference in 90-day mortality or functional outcomes at follow-up.

Interpretation

There is evidence of benefit associated with ECCO₂R with time to improvement in respiratory acidosis, in respiratory physiology and an immediate improvement in patient comfort and dyspnoea with commencement of ECCO₂R. In addition, there was minimal clinically significant adverse events associated with ECCO₂R use in patients with AECOPD at risk of failing or not tolerating NIV. However, the ICU and hospital lengths of stay were longer in the ECCO₂R for similar outcomes. Trial registration The trial is prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02086084. Registered on 13th March 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02086084?cond=ecco2r&draw=2&rank=8.

SUBMITTER: Barrett NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9021560 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common cause of chronic respiratory failure and its course is punctuated by a series of acute exacerbations which commonly lead to hospital admission. Exacerbations are managed through the application of non-invasive ventilation and, when this fails, tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. The need for mechanical ventilation significantly increases the risk of death. An alternative therapy, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R), has been shown to be efficacious in removing carbon dioxide from the blood; however, its impact on respiratory physiology and patient outcomes has not been explored.Methods/designA randomised controlled open label trial of patients (12 in each arm) with acute exacerbations of COPD at risk of failing conventional therapy (NIV) randomised to either remaining on NIV or having ECCO2R added to NIV with a primary endpoint of time to cessation of NIV. The change in respiratory physiology following the application of ECCO2R and/or NIV will be measured using electrical impedance tomography, oesophageal pressure and parasternal electromyography. Additional outcomes, including patient tolerance, outcomes, need for readmission, changes in blood gases and biochemistry and procedural complications, will be measured. Physiological changes will be compared within one patient over time and between the two groups. Healthcare costs in the UK system will also be compared between the two groups.DiscussionCOPD is a common disease and exacerbations are a leading cause of hospital admission in the UK and worldwide, with a sizeable mortality. The management of patients with COPD consumes significant hospital and financial resources. This study seeks to understand the feasibility of a novel approach to the management of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD as well as to understand the underlying physiological changes to explain why the approach does or does not assist this patient cohort. Detailed respiratory physiology has not been previously undertaken using this technique and there are no other randomised controlled trials currently in the literature.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02086084.

Project description:ObjectivesLower tidal volume ventilation (targeting 3 mL/kg predicted body weight, PBW) facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) has been investigated as a potential therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in the pRotective vEntilation with veno-venouS lung assisT in respiratory failure (REST) trial. We investigated the effect of this strategy on cardiac function, and in particular the right ventricle.DesignSubstudy of the REST trial.SettingNine U.K. ICUs.PatientsPatients with AHRF (Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg [20 kPa]).InterventionTransthoracic echocardiography and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements were collected at baseline and postrandomization in patients randomized to ECCO2R or usual care.MeasurementsThe primary outcome measures were a difference in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) on postrandomization echocardiogram and difference in NT-proBNP postrandomization.ResultsThere were 21 patients included in the echocardiography cohort (ECCO2R, n = 13; usual care, n = 8). Patient characteristics were similar in both groups at baseline. Median (interquartile range) tidal volumes were lower in the ECCO2R group compared with the usual care group postrandomization; 3.6 (3.1-4.2) mL/kg PBW versus 5.2 (4.9-5.7) mL/kg PBW, respectively (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the primary outcome measure of mean (sd) TAPSE in the ECCO2R and usual care groups postrandomization; 21.3 (5.4) mm versus 20.1 (3.2) mm, respectively (p = 0.60). There were 75 patients included in the NT-proBNP cohort (ECCO2R, n = 36; usual care, n = 39). Patient characteristics were similar in both groups at baseline. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) tidal volumes were lower in the ECCO2R group than the usual care group postrandomization; 3.8 (3.3-4.2) mL/kg PBW versus 6.7 (5.8-8.1) mL/kg PBW, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in median (IQR) NT-proBNP postrandomization; 1121 (241-5370) pg/mL versus 1393 (723-4332) pg/mL in the ECCO2R and usual care groups, respectively (p = 0.30).ConclusionsIn patients with AHRF, a reduction in tidal volume facilitated by ECCO2R, did not modify cardiac function.

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:Background/aimTreatment 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 methodsThis 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).ResultsECCO2R 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.ConclusionECCO2R 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.