Vito Marco Ranieri

Rationale: It is unclear whether extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) can reduce the rate of intubation or the total time on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in adults experiencing an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To determine whether ECCO2R increases the number of ventilator-free days within the first 5 days postrandomization (VFD-5) in exacerbation of COPD in patients who are either failing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or who are failing to wean from IMV. Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 41 U.S. institutions (2018–2022) (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03255057). Subjects were randomized to receive either standard care with venovenous ECCO2R (NIV stratum: n = 26; IMV stratum: n = 32) or standard care alone (NIV stratum: n = 22; IMV stratum: n = 33). Measurements and Main Results: The trial was stopped early because of slow enrollment and enrolled 113 subjects of the planned sample size of 180. There was no significant difference in the median VFD-5 between the arms controlled by strata (P = 0.36). In the NIV stratum, the median VFD-5 for both arms was 5 days (median shift = 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0–0.0). In the IMV stratum, the median VFD-5 in the standard care and ECCO2R arms were 0.25 and 2 days, respectively; median shift = 0.00 (95% confidence interval: 0.00–1.25). In the NIV stratum, all-cause in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the ECCO2R arm (22% vs. 0%, P = 0.02) with no difference in the IMV stratum (17% vs. 15%, P = 0.73). Conclusions: In subjects with exacerbation of COPD, the use of ECCO2R compared with standard care did not improve VFD-5. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03255057).

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for acute respiratory failure encompasses veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO₂R). V-V ECMO is primarily used to treat severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), characterized by life-threatening hypoxemia or ventilatory insufficiency with conventional protective settings. It employs an artificial lung with high blood flows, and allows improvement in gas exchange, correction of hypoxemia, and reduction of the workload on the native lung. On the other hand, ECCO₂R focuses on carbon dioxide removal and ventilatory load reduction (“ultra-protective ventilation”) in moderate ARDS, or in avoiding pump failure in acute exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinical indications for V-V ECLS are tailored to individual patients, as there are no absolute contraindications. However, determining the ideal timing for initiating extracorporeal respiratory support remains uncertain. Current ECLS equipment faces issues like size and durability. Innovations include intravascular lung assist devices (ILADs) and pumpless devices, though they come with their own challenges. Efficient gas exchange relies on modern oxygenators using hollow fiber designs, but research is exploring microfluidic technology to improve oxygenator size, thrombogenicity, and blood flow capacity. Coagulation management during V-V ECLS is crucial due to common bleeding and thrombosis complications; indeed, anticoagulation strategies and monitoring systems require improvement, while surface coatings and new materials show promise. Moreover, pharmacokinetics during ECLS significantly impact antibiotic therapy, necessitating therapeutic drug monitoring for precise dosing. Managing native lung ventilation during V-V ECMO remains complex, requiring a careful balance between benefits and potential risks for spontaneously breathing patients. Moreover, weaning from V-V ECMO is recognized as an area of relevant uncertainty, requiring further research. In the last decade, the concept of Extracorporeal Organ Support (ECOS) for patients with multiple organ dysfunction has emerged, combining ECLS with other organ support therapies to provide a more holistic approach for critically ill patients. In this review, we aim at providing an in-depth overview of V-V ECMO and ECCO₂R, addressing various aspects of their use, challenges, and potential future directions in research and development.

The best timing for endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) remains debated. Aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hARF receiving either a trial of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubated with no prior attempt of NIV (“straight intubation”). All consecutive patients admitted to the 25 participating ICUs were included and divided in two groups: the “straight intubation” group and the “NIV” group. A propensity score matching was performed to correct for biases associated with the choice of the respiratory support. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay and reintubation rate. A total of 704 COVID-19 patients were admitted to ICUs during the study period. After matching, 141 patients were included in each group. No clinically relevant difference at ICU admission was found between groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the NIV group (22.0% vs. 36.2%), with no significant difference in secondary endpoints. There was no significant mortality difference between patients who received straight intubation and those intubated after NIV failure. In COVID-19 patients with hARF it is worth and safe attempting a trial of NIV prior to intubation.

Rationale: The “Berlin definition” of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO₂/Fi O₂ of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H₂O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO₂/Fi O₂ ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO₂/Fi O₂ ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.

Purpose of review: To review current evidence on the pathophysiology of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and on the implementation of lung protective ventilation. Recent findings: Although multiple observations and physiological studies seem to show a different pathophysiological behaviour in COVID-19-ARDS compared with ‘classical’ ARDS, numerous studies on thousands of patients do not confirm these findings and COVID-19-ARDS indeed shares similar characteristics and interindividual heterogeneity with ARDS from other causes. Although still scarce, present evidence on the application of lung protective ventilation in COVID-19-ARDS shows that it is indeed consistently applied in ICUs worldwide with a possible signal towards better survival at least in one study. The levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) usually applied in these patients are higher than in ‘classical’ ARDS, proposing once again the issue of PEEP personalization in hypoxemic patients. In the absence of robust evidence, careful evaluation of the patient is needed, and empiric settings should be oriented towards lower levels of PEEP. Summary: According to the present evidence, a lung protective strategy based on low tidal volume and plateau pressures is indicated in COVID-19-ARDS as in ARDS from other causes; however, there are still uncertainties on the appropriate levels of PEEP.