Minimal-flow ECCO 2 R in patients needing CRRT does not facilitate lung-protective ventilation

10Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Extracorporeal CO 2 removal (ECCO 2 R) is intended to facilitate lung protective ventilation in patients with hypercarbia. The combination of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and minimal-flow ECCO 2 R offers a promising concept for patients in need of both. We hypothecated that this system is able to remove enough CO 2 to facilitate lung protective ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients. In 11 ventilated patients with acute renal failure who received either pre- or postdilution CRRT, minimal-flow ECCO 2 R was added to the circuit. During 6 h of combined therapy, CO 2 removal and its effect on facilitation of lung-protective mechanical ventilation were assessed. Ventilatory settings were kept in assisted or pressure-controlled mode allowing spontaneous breathing. With minimal-flow ECCO 2 R significant decreases in minute ventilation, tidal volume and paCO 2 were found after one and three but not after 6 h of therapy. Nevertheless, no significant reduction in applied force was found at any time during combined therapy. CO 2 removal was 20.73 ml CO 2 /min and comparable between pre- and postdilution CRRT. Minimal-flow ECCO 2 R in combination with CRRT is sufficient to reduce surrogates for lung-protective mechanical ventilation but was not sufficient to significantly reduce force applied to the lung. Causative might be the absolute amount of CO 2 removal of only about 10% of resting CO 2 production in an adult as we found. The benefit of applying minimal flow ECCO 2 R in an uncontrolled setting of mechanical ventilation might be limited.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moerer, O., Harnisch, L. O., Barwing, J., Heise, D., Heuer, J. F., & Quintel, M. (2019). Minimal-flow ECCO 2 R in patients needing CRRT does not facilitate lung-protective ventilation. Journal of Artificial Organs, 22(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-018-1068-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free