Extracorporeal CO2 extraction (ECCO2R) is a technique that uses an extracorporeal device to extract excess CO2 from the blood by passing it through an air exchange membrane using low blood flows and requiring systemic anticoagulation for its use. The main technical difference with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system (ECMO) is the reduced blood flow (between 300 and 500 ml/min), achieving the elimination of most of the CO2 produced by metabolism, thanks to the greater solubility of this gas in plasma.
This technique emerged from the need to decouple the oxygenation support from the ventilation support provided by ECMO with the main objective of optimising lung protection during mechanical ventilation (MV) [1]. There is currently no strong evidence regarding the benefit provided by the use of ECCO2R in this clinical context [2].
Anzeige
We present a series of 8 cases of patients with severe global respiratory failure due to COVID-19, admitted in ICU between December 2020 and May 2021. Regarding patients’ characteristics, we highlight mean values of ICU stay of 45.8 days (± standard deviation 15.8), PaFi of 75.1 (± 10.4) and pH 7.25 (± 0.03), despite endotracheal intubation (ETI) and protective MV with Pplat 29.1 (± 1.61). Prone position was necessary in all cases, both before and after ECCO2R placement. The mean number of days in prone position prior to ECCO2R was 3.75 days (± 1.08). Mean number of days from the start of ETI to the start of ECCO2R was 14.5 days, PaO2/FiO2 of 75.1 and SOFA score 6.6. Transfer to ECMO was not possible in any of the 8 cases, following to the current recommendations of the receiving centres [3].
All cases had positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase-chain-reaction detection and severe respiratory failure without severe dysfunction of other organs or documented infections.
During ICU admission, selected patients presented persistent hypoxaemia and hypercapnia refractory to lung protective measures (TV 6–8 ml/kg, Pplat < 30) and proning. ECCO2R support was considered then, preserving the level of lung protection and correcting the expected deterioration of ventilation with worsening respiratory acidosis obtained after achieving an increase in PEEP. Our objectives were also to decrease Pplat in a range of less than 28, to decrease respiratory rate under 25 bpm and to decrease TV (under 7 ml/kg).
Table 1 shows the respiratory status prior to initiation of therapy, and Table 2 shows the results obtained 12–24 h after initiation of the ECCO2R.
Table 1
Characteristics
N | Sex (F/M) | Age (yr) | BMI (kg/m2) | Days Symp/ECCO2R | Days EIT/ECCO2R | Compliance (ml/cmH2O) | PO2/FiO2 | Days on ECCO2R | ICU LOS after ECCO2R | Out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | F | 53 | 33 | 26 | 15 | 17 | 64 | 5 | 47 | a |
2 | F | 55 | 37 | 25 | 11 | 13 | 70 | 7 | 33 | a |
3 | M | 74 | 28 | 53 | 13 | 34 | 96 | 1 | 24 | d |
4 | M | 67 | 33 | 29 | 19 | 8 | 71 | 6 | 23 | d |
5 | F | 61 | 32 | 16 | 21 | 28 | 61 | 4 | 12 | a |
6 | M | 69 | 36 | 20 | 9 | 42 | 78 | 3 | 20 | d |
7 | M | 69 | 36 | 23 | 14 | 35 | 81 | 5 | 8 | a |
8 | M | 64 | 25 | 23 | 14 | 14 | 80 | 8 | 1 | d |
Table 2
Data before and after 24-h initiating ECCO2R
Before ECCO2R | After ECCO2R and PEEP trial | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | TV (ml/kg) | Pplat (cmH2O) | DP (cmH2O) | PEEP (cmH2O) | pCO2 | FiO2 | TV (ml/kg) | Pplat (cmH2O) | DP (cmH2O) | PEEP (cmH2O) | pCO2 | FiO2 |
1 | 6 | 32 | 24 | 8 | 75 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 30 | 16 | 14 | 63 | 0.6 |
2 | 6.4 | 27 | 16 | 6 | 71 | 1 | 4.5 | 23 | 10 | 10 | 59 | 0.75 |
3 | 7.2 | 28 | 20 | 8 | 81 | 1 | 5 | 28 | 18 | 10 | 67 | 0.85 |
4 | 7.8 | 31 | 18 | 12 | 65 | 1 | 4.6 | 28 | 13 | 14 | 57 | 0.9 |
5 | 5.6 | 28 | 16 | 12 | 84 | 1 | 5 | 28 | 10 | 18 | 51 | 0.7 |
6 | 6.7 | 28 | 11 | 14 | 66 | 0.9 | 6.5 | 25 | 9 | 16 | 51 | 0.7 |
7 | 5.1 | 29 | 17 | 12 | 87 | 1 | 4 | 28 | 12 | 16 | 64 | 0.65 |
8 | 6 | 30 | 18 | 8- | 77 | 80 | 4.2 | 26 | 14 | 12 | 62 | 0.75 |
Anzeige
The therapeutic objectives of ProLUNG® (blood flow 400 ml/min and air flow 15 L/min), with a rise in pH (7.32–7.35), were achieved in the first 12 h of treatment. Results are shown in Table 2. Regarding technical complications, thrombocytopenia not induced by heparin was observed in one of the cases, requiring withdrawal of treatment after 5 days.
Regarding the outcome data on the ECCO2R device, the mean duration of therapy was 5.25 days, with a mean blood flow of 400 ml/min and air flow of 12 lpm. Fifty percentage of the patients survived, with an ICU discharge of 25 days (average value) after disconnection from the ECCO2R. Case number 8 died within a day after removal of the CO2 extractor.
These cases, as in previous studies, show us the possible usefulness of applying ECCO2R based on individual clinical and physiological criteria [4], without development of serious complications, although other known published series report relevant complications [5].
ECCO2R system could be applied as a tool to optimise the degree of lung protection, essential in patients with severe ARDS. In our experience, ECCO2R is a simple and feasible therapeutic option for patients with severe respiratory diseases in whom conventional treatment has been maximised. Further studies are needed to strengthen the scientific evidence in this context [6].
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all clinical members of the ICU team at H.U del Henares, who actively helped gather the data for the present article.
Declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Informed consent from patients or family member for the inclusion of medical data in our prospective ICU Registry was obtained. This study was conducted in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki. Local institutional review boards and independent ethics committees (Healthcare Ethics Committee of the Francisco de Vitoria University) approved the protocol, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Consent for publication
Consent for publication was forwarded by next of akin / family member through informed consent.
Competing interests
Authors declare no potential financial or ethical conflicts of interest.
Anzeige
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.