Extracorporeal respiratory support, also known as extracorporeal gas exchange, may be used to rescue the most severe forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with high blood flow venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Alternatively, lower flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal might be applied to reduce the intensity of mechanical ventilation in patients with less severe forms of the disease. However, critical reading of the results of the randomized trials and case series published to date reveals major methodological biases. Older trials are not relevant anymore since the ECMO circuitry was not heparin-coated leading to severe hemorrhagic complications due to high levels of anticoagulation, and because extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and control group patients did not receive lung-protective ventilation. Alternatively, in the more recent CESAR trial, many patients randomized to the ECMO arm did not receive ECMO and no standardized protocol for lung-protective mechanical ventilation existed in the control group. Since these techniques are costly and associated with potentially serious adverse events, there is an urgent need for high-quality data, for which the cornerstone remains randomized controlled trials.

Do we need randomized clinical trials in extracorporeal respiratory support? Yes / A. Combes, A. Pesenti, D. Brodie. - In: INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE. - ISSN 0342-4642. - 43:12(2017 Dec), pp. 1862-1865. [10.1007/s00134-017-4933-7]

Do we need randomized clinical trials in extracorporeal respiratory support? Yes

A. Pesenti
Secondo
;
2017

Abstract

Extracorporeal respiratory support, also known as extracorporeal gas exchange, may be used to rescue the most severe forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with high blood flow venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Alternatively, lower flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal might be applied to reduce the intensity of mechanical ventilation in patients with less severe forms of the disease. However, critical reading of the results of the randomized trials and case series published to date reveals major methodological biases. Older trials are not relevant anymore since the ECMO circuitry was not heparin-coated leading to severe hemorrhagic complications due to high levels of anticoagulation, and because extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and control group patients did not receive lung-protective ventilation. Alternatively, in the more recent CESAR trial, many patients randomized to the ECMO arm did not receive ECMO and no standardized protocol for lung-protective mechanical ventilation existed in the control group. Since these techniques are costly and associated with potentially serious adverse events, there is an urgent need for high-quality data, for which the cornerstone remains randomized controlled trials.
acute respiratory distress syndrome; editorial; extracorporeal co2removal; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; mechanical ventilation; critical care and intensive care medicine
Settore MED/41 - Anestesiologia
dic-2017
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
393_Combes_icm_2017.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 481.26 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
481.26 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/531925
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact