Abstract
Background A strategy that limits tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures, improves outcomes in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) may facilitate ultra-protective ventilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venovenous ECCO2R in supporting ultra-protective ventilation in moderate-to-severe ARDS.
Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were interrogated for studies (2000-2021) reporting venovenous ECCO2R use in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Studies reporting ≥10 adult patients in English language journals were included. Ventilatory parameters after 24 hours of initiating ECCO2R, device characteristics, and safety outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measure was the change in driving pressure at 24 hours of ECCO2R therapy in relation to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in tidal volume, gas exchange, and safety data.
Results Ten studies reporting 421 patients (PaO2:FiO2 141.03mmHg) were included. Extracorporeal blood flow rates ranged from 0.35-1.5 L/min. Random effects modelling indicated a 3.56 cmH2O reduction (95%-CI: 3.22-3.91) in driving pressure from baseline (p<0.001) and a 1.89 ml/kg (95%-CI: 1.75-2.02, p<0.001) reduction in tidal volume. Oxygenation, respiratory rate and PEEP remained unchanged. No significant interactions between driving pressure reduction and baseline driving pressure, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide or PaO2:FiO2 ratio were identified in metaregression analysis. Bleeding and haemolysis were the commonest complications of therapy.
Conclusions Venovenous ECCO2R permitted significant reductions in ΔP in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Heterogeneity amongst studies and devices, a paucity of randomised controlled trials, and variable safety reporting calls for standardisation of outcome reporting.
Prospective evaluation of optimal device operation and anticoagulation in high quality studies is required before further recommendations can be made.
What is the Key Question?
In adult patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), can venovenous extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) support ultraprotective lung ventilation beyond the current standard for protective ventilation in ARDS?
What is the bottom line?
Systematic review of available data on venovenous ECCO2R shows that it can reduce driving pressure in ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, supporting ultraprotective ventilation. Prospective measurement of mechanical power, and greater emphasis on safety and patient-centred outcomes is needed.
Why read on?
This is the first systematic review to exclusively address venovenous ECCO2R use in the moderate-to-severe ARDS cohort. We report the degree of lung protection achieved with venovenous ECCO2R devices, along with factors potentially limiting widespread adoption.
Competing Interest Statement
DB reports receiving research support from ALung Technologies. He has been on the medical advisory boards for Baxter, Abiomed, Xenios and Hemovent. DB is also Chair of the Executive Committee of the International ECMO Network (ECMONet) and on the Board of Directors of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). AC reports receiving grants and personal fees from Maquet, Xenios and Baxter and serving as a member of the executive and scientific committees for ECMONet and as the recent past president of the EuroELSO organization. KS is a member of the ECMONet scientific committee, the Asia-Pacific ELSO educational committee, and Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society COVID-19 working group; he is also the lead of an ECMOed research working group.
Funding Statement
The study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵10 Critical Care Research Group and Centre of Research Excellence for Advanced Cardio-respiratory Therapies Improving OrgaN Support (ACTIONS)
Data Availability
All data produced are available within the main text, supplement, or via reasonable request to the authors.