High- versus Low-Flow Extracorporeal Respiratory Support in Experimental Hypoxemic Acute Lung Injury.
basic_science · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 36848321.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1164/rccm.202212-2194OC and PMC identifier 10161753.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
<b>Rationale:</b> In the EOLIA (ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS) trial, oxygenation was similar between intervention and conventional groups, whereas [Formula: see text]e was reduced in the intervention group. Comparable reductions in ventilation intensity are theoretically possible with low-flow extracorporeal CO<sub>2</sub> removal (ECCO<sub>2</sub>R), provided oxygenation remains acceptable. <b>Objectives:</b> To compare the effects of ECCO<sub>2</sub>R and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and hemodynamics in animal models of pulmonary (intratracheal hydrochloric acid) and extrapulmonary (intravenous oleic acid) lung injury. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-four pigs with moderate to severe hypoxemia (Pa<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub>:Fi<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> ⩽ 150 mm Hg) were randomized to ECMO (blood flow 50-60 ml/kg/min), ECCO<sub>2</sub>R (0.4 L/min), or mechanical ventilation alone. <b>Measurements and Main Results:</b> [Formula: see text]o<sub>2</sub>, [Formula: see text]co<sub>2</sub>, gas exchange, hemodynamics, and respiratory mechanics were measured and are presented as 24-hour averages. Oleic acid versus hydrochloric acid showed higher extravascular lung water (1,424 ± 419 vs. 574 ± 195 ml; <i>P</i> < 0.001), worse oxygenation (Pa<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub>:Fi<sub>O<sub>2</sub></sub> = 125 ± 14 vs. 151 ± 11 mm Hg; <i>P</i> < 0.001), but better respiratory mechanics (plateau pressure 27 ± 4 vs. 30 ± 3 cm H<sub>2</sub>O; <i>P</i> = 0.017). Both models led to acute severe pulmonary hypertension. In both models, ECMO (3.7 ± 0.5 L/min), compared with ECCO<sub>2</sub>R (0.4 L/min), increased mixed venous oxygen saturation and oxygenation, and improved hemodynamics (cardiac output = 6.0 ± 1.4 vs. 5.2 ± 1.4 L/min; <i>P</i> = 0.003). [Formula: see text]o<sub>2</sub> and [Formula: see text]co<sub>2</sub>, irrespective of lung injury model, were lower during ECMO, resulting in lower Pa<sub>CO<sub>2</sub></sub> and [Formula: see text]e but worse respiratory elastance compared with ECCO<sub>2</sub>R (64 ± 27 vs. 40 ± 8 cm H<sub>2</sub>O/L; <i>P</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> ECMO was associated with better oxygenation, lower [Formula: see text]o<sub>2</sub>, and better hemodynamics. ECCO<sub>2</sub>R may offer a potential alternative to ECMO, but there are concerns regarding its effects on hemodynamics and pulmonary hypertension.
Medical subject headings
- Acute Lung Injury
- Hypertension, Pulmonary