Skip to content

Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00000572
Enrollment
40
Registered
1999-10-28
Start date
1987-06-30
Completion date
1993-01-31
Last updated
2018-03-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Lung Diseases

Brief summary

To compare conventional therapy using low frequency positive pressure ventilation with extracorporeal CO2 removal for the treatment of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Detailed description

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that at least 150,000 individuals die each year of adult respiratory distress syndrome. Treatment remains largely supportive. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) conducted the Extracorporeal Support for Respiratory Insufficiency (ECMO, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) trial from June 1974 through 1978. In ECMO, 90 patients were randomized to either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation plus conventional therapy or to conventional therapy. Survival rates were less than ten percent in both groups. The failure of the trial to demonstrate the superiority of ECMO over conventional ventilatory support resulted in the virtual elimination of the use of ECMO in clinical medicine. In the earlier NHLBI trial, ECMO was implemented with a veno-arterial shunt which approximated 90 percent of the baseline cardiac output. Ventilation of the lungs was continued with reduced function of inspiration oxygen. Thus, the lungs were deprived of the principle source of blood supply while continuously exposed to potentially injurious ventilatory pressures and gas composition. The present patient trial used a new form of therapy developed by Dr. Gattinoni and co-workers in Milan, Italy with the collaboration of Dr. Kolobow at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda. The authors reported a 77 percent survival rate for the new therapy. In Step 1 of the new therapy, the patient was initially ventilated with pressure-controlled, inverted ratio ventilation. If the patient did not improve, Step 2 using extracorporeal perfusion was performed with a veno-venous shunt in contrast to a veno-arterial shunt. The veno-venous shunt preserved pulmonary blood flow whereas the veno-arterial shunt diminished it. Step 3 was reserved for those patients who did not meet the therapeutic criteria of Step 2. They underwent low frequency positive-pressure ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal involving veno-venous bypass via the internal jugular and femoral or bilateral saphenous veins. DESIGN NARRATIVE: Randomized, fixed sample. Patients were stratified by age (under and over 40 years) and by the presence or absence of trauma. Patients were assigned to conventional positive pressure ventilation therapy or to a three-step therapeutic program employing pressure-controlled-inverted-ratio-ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, and low-frequency positive pressure ventilation-extracorporeal CO2 removal. The main outcome measure was survival at 30 days after randomization. Secondary outcome measures included hospital costs, physiologic data, length of hospital stay, and blood product consumption. Follow-up took place during the year after hospital discharge.

Interventions

PROCEDUREpositive-pressure ventilation

Detailed computer protocol controlled positive pressure ventilation

PROCEDUREextracorporeal membrane oxygenation (CO2 removal)

Detailed computer protocol controlled Extracorporeal CO2 Removal with reduced positive pressure ventilation

Sponsors

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
CollaboratorNIH
Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Men and women with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Inclusion Criteria: ECMO ENTRY CRITERIA (PaO2 \< 50 mm Hg -REPEATED THREE TIMES): Rapid entry: 2 hours at fraFIO2=1.00 and PEEP\>5 cm H2O with PaCO2=30-45 mmHg Slow entry: 12 hours at fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2)\>0.60 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)\>5 cm H2O with PaCO2=30-45 mmHg and right to Left shunt fraction \>0.30

Exclusion criteria

1. Contraindication to anti-coagulation (for example, gastrointestinal bleeding, recent cerebrovascular accident, or chronic bleeding disorder). 2. Pw \> 25 mm Hg (superseded by our screening criterion that Pw \ 15 mm Hg). 3. Mechanical ventilation \>21. days. 4. Severe chronic systemic disease or another clinical condition that, in itself,greatly limits survival; for example, 1. Irreversible central nervous system disease 2. Severe chronic pulmonary disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)\<1 L, FEV1/FVC(forced vital capacity) \<0.3 of predicted, chronic PaCO2 \>45 mm Hg, chest x-ray evidence of overinflation or interstitial infiltration, or previous hospitalization for chronic respiratory insufficiency) 3. Total-body surface burns\> 40% 4. Rapidly fatal malignancy 5. Chronic left ventricular failure 6. Chronic renal failure (we required serum creatlnlne \ 2 mg/dl or chronic dialysis therapy) 7. Chronic liver failure (we required total serum bilirubin;?; 2 mg/dl) 8. Immunosuppressed patients and patients with a positive human immu.. nodeficiency virus test

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
SurvivalHospital stay (time until death): participants will be followed for the duration of hospital stay, an expected average of 30 days).All deaths occurred within 30 days of enrollment

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Hospital daysup to hospital discharge, approximately 30 days
ICU daysup to ICU discharge, approximately 30 days

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Hospital costsHospital stay$US
Bleeding/HemorrhageHospital stayBleeding in ECCO2R subjects exceeded that in control subjects

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026