Effect of Lower Tidal Volume Ventilation Facilitated by Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal vs Standard Care Ventilation on 90-Day Mortality in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The REST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.

ECCO2R therapy in the ICU: consensus of a European round table meeting.

BACKGROUND: With recent advances in technology, patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ae-COPD) could benefit from extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R). However, current evidence in these indications is limited. A European ECCO2R Expert Round Table Meeting was convened to further explore the potential for this treatment approach. METHODS: A modified Delphi-based method was used to collate European experts' views to better understand how ECCO2R therapy is applied, identify how patients are selected and how treatment decisions are made, as well as to identify any points of consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were selected based on known clinical expertise in critical care and in providing respiratory support with ECCO2R or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ARDS was considered the primary indication for ECCO2R therapy (n = 7), while 3 participants considered ae-COPD the primary indication. The group agreed that the primary treatment goal of ECCO2R therapy in patients with ARDS was to apply ultra-protective lung ventilation via managing CO2 levels. Driving pressure (≥ 14 cmH2O) followed by plateau pressure (Pplat; ≥ 25 cmH2O) was considered the most important criteria for ECCO2R initiation. Key treatment targets for patients with ARDS undergoing ECCO2R included pH (> 7.30), respiratory rate (< 25 or < 20 breaths/min), driving pressure (< 14 cmH2O) and Pplat (< 25 cmH2O). In ae-COPD, there was consensus that, in patients at risk of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure, no decrease in PaCO2 and no decrease in respiratory rate were key criteria for initiating ECCO2R therapy. Key treatment targets in ae-COPD were patient comfort, pH (> 7.30-7.35), respiratory rate (< 20-25 breaths/min), decrease of PaCO2 (by 10-20%), weaning from NIV, decrease in HCO3- and maintaining haemodynamic stability. Consensus was reached on weaning protocols for both indications. Anticoagulation with intravenous unfractionated heparin was the strategy preferred by the group. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from this group of experienced physicians suggest that ECCO2R therapy may be an effective supportive treatment for adults with ARDS or ae-COPD. Further evidence from randomised clinical trials and/or high-quality prospective studies is needed to better guide decision making.

Calculating evidence-based renal replacement therapy - Introducing an excel-based calculator to improve prescribing and delivery in renal replacement therapy - A before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Transferring the theoretical aspect of continuous renal replacement therapy to the bedside and delivering a given "dose" can be difficult. In research, the "dose" of renal replacement therapy is given as effluent flow rate in ml kg-1 h-1. Unfortunately, most machines require other information when they are initiating therapy, including blood flow rate, pre-blood pump flow rate, dialysate flow rate, etc. This can lead to confusion, resulting in patients receiving inappropriate doses of renal replacement therapy. Our aim was to design an excel calculator which would personalise patient's treatment, deliver an effective, evidence-based dose of renal replacement therapy without large variations in practice and prolong filter life. Our calculator prescribes a haemodialfiltration dose of 25 ml kg-1 h-1 whilst limiting the filtration fraction to 15%. METHODS: We compared the episodes of renal replacement therapy received by a historical group of patients, by retrieving their data stored on the haemofiltration machines, to a group where the calculator was used. In the second group, the data were gathered prospectively. RESULTS: The median delivered dose reduced from 41.0 ml kg-1 h-1 to 26.8 ml kg-1 h-1 with reduced variability that was significantly closer to the aim of 25 ml kg-1.h-1 (p < 0.0001). The median treatment time increased from 8.5 h to 22.2 h (p = 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Our calculator significantly reduces variation in prescriptions of continuous veno-venous haemodiafiltration and provides an evidence-based dose. It is easy to use and provides personal care for patients whilst optimizing continuous veno-venous haemodiafiltration delivery and treatment times.