Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO2 extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: Secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study

Alain Combes, Tommaso Tonetti, Vito Fanelli, Tai Pham, Antonio Pesenti, Jordi Mancebo, Daniel Brodie, V. Marco Ranieri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Retrospective analysis of the SUPERNOVA trial exploring the hypothesis that efficacy and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to facilitate reduction of tidal volume (VT) to 4 mL/kg in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may differ between systems with lower (area of membrane length 0.59 m2; blood flow 300-500 mL/min) and higher (membrane area 1.30 m2; blood flow between 800 and 1000 mL/min) CO2 extraction capacity. Ninety-five patients with moderate ARDS were included (33 patients treated with lower and 62 patients treated with higher CO2 extraction devices). We found that (1) VT of 4 mL/kg was reached by 55% and 64% of patients with the lower extraction versus 90% and 92% of patients with higher extraction devices at 8 and 24 hours from baseline, respectively (p<0.001), and (2) percentage of patients experiencing episodes of ECCO2R-related haemolysis and bleeding was higher with lower than with higher extraction devices (21% vs 6%, p=0.045% and 27% vs 6%, p=0.010, respectively). Although V T of 4 mL/kg could have been obtained with all devices, this was achieved frequently and with a lower rate of adverse events by devices with higher CO2 extraction capacity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1179-1181
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019


  • acute respiratory distress syndrome
  • extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal
  • mechanical ventilation
  • ventilator-induced lung injury

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO<sub>2</sub> extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: Secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this