ECCO2R in 12 COVID-19 ARDS Patients With Extremely Low Compliance and Refractory Hypercapnia

Purpose: A phenotype of COVID-19 ARDS patients with extremely low compliance and refractory hypercapnia was found in our ICU. In the context of limited number of ECMO machines, feasibility of a low-flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO₂R) based on the renal replacement therapy (RRT) platform in these patients was assessed.

Methods: Single-center, prospective study. Refractory hypercapnia patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS were included and divided into the adjusted group and unadjusted group according to the level of PaCO₂ after the application of the ECCO₂R system. Ventilation parameters [tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate, and PEEP], platform pressure (Pplat) and driving pressure (DP), respiratory system compliance, arterial blood gases, and ECCO₂R system characteristics were collected.

Results: Twelve patients with refractory hypercapnia were enrolled, and the PaCO₂ was 64.5 [56-88.75] mmHg. In the adjusted group, VT was significantly reduced from 5.90 ± 0.16 to 5.08 ± 0.43 ml/kg PBW; DP and Pplat were also significantly reduced from 23.5 ± 2.72 mmHg and 29.88 ± 3.04 mmHg to 18.5 ± 2.62 mmHg and 24.75 ± 3.41 mmHg, respectively. In the unadjusted group, PaCO₂ decreased from 94 [86.25, 100.3] mmHg to 80 [67.50, 85.25] mmHg but with no significant difference, and the DP and Pplat were not decreased after weighing the pros and cons.

Conclusions: A low-flow ECCO₂R system based on the RRT platform enabled CO₂ removal and could also decrease the DP and Pplat significantly, which provided a new way to treat these COVID-19 ARDS patients with refractory hypercapnia and extremely low compliance.

Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04340414.

Introduction

Recently, COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been a worldwide severe epidemic problem and resulted in thousands of deaths (1). Respiratory manifestation was one of the main clinical characteristics of this disease; about 15-20% of suspected and confirmed patients developed severe hypoxemia and required mechanical ventilation (2). Gattinoni et al. divided the COVID-19 pneumonia into two phenotypes: Type L and Type H (3), but in our clinical practice in Wuhan, we encountered a group of ARDS patients who presented a different phenotype from the two mentioned above, with refractory carbon dioxide (CO₂) retention, extremely low lung compliance, and low lung recruitability, which was also found in other centers (4, 5). Hypercapnia not only impairs innate immunity via evolutionarily conserved mechanisms (6), which reduce the ability to fight infection, but also has hemodynamic consequence, increasing pulmonary hypertension and worsening right ventricular function (7). A recent study showed that severe hypercapnia (PaCO₂ ≥ 50 mmHg) appeared to be independently associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with ARDS (8). In order to correct the severe hypercapnia, minute ventilation and drive pressure were often forced to increase to far beyond the level of lung protective ventilation. This means higher mechanical energy and a higher risk of ventilator-related lung injury (9, 10). Therefore, extracorporeal carbon-dioxide removal (ECCO₂R) device came into our consideration. In this sudden outbreak of COVID-19, like all countries in the world (11), the number of ECMO machines has been in a state of serious shortage for quite a long time, and also the specific ECCO₂R system. However, the RRT device is more feasible, and recent studies had improved that, ECCO₂R based on a RRT platform enabled very low tidal volume ventilation with moderate increase in PaCO₂ in patients with ARDS patients (12, 13). Therefore, this prospective study was designed to assess whether the application of the ECCO₂R system on RRT platform could decrease the DP and Pplat, thereby facilitated the protective ventilation in these patients.

Methods

Patients

This single-center, prospective study was conducted during March 7 to April 15 in a newly constructed 32-bed ICU in Wuhan. All the medical staff were from Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH); 70% of them had experiences in the ICU ward. All the patients admitted were transferred from other hospitals and were all identified with COVID-19. This study was approved by the ethics review board of PUMCH (ZS-2332), and informed consent was obtained from legally authorized surrogates. The clinical trial protocol was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov/ (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04340414).

Refractory hypercapnia patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS were included, if the following inclusion criteria were met: (1) diagnosed with ARDS according to the Berlin definition and lung protective strategy was implemented after admission, which included low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (Vt 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight), low plateau pressure (Pplat <30 cmH₂O), higher PEEP strategy, and prone positioning 16–20 h per day; (2) evolved into refractory hypercapnia (PaCO₂ > 50 mmHg), despite efforts of correcting CO₂ retention by increasing the respiratory rate and driving pressure. The exclusion criteria were patients with ICU stay <24 h, decompensated heart failure, pregnancy, age <18 years, acute brain injury, contradictions of systemic anticoagulation, catheter access to femoral vein or jugular vein impossible, and decision to limit therapeutic interventions.

ECCO₂R System

The ECCO₂R was provided by a low-flow gas-exchanger oxygenator (QUADROX-I pediatric HMO30000, MAQUET) integrated into the Primsaflex platform (Gambro-Baxter) with the slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF) mode, and the ultrafiltration was set at 0. The polymethyl pentene, hollow fiber, gas-exchanger membrane was connected to the extracorporeal circuit before the RRT filter (Figure 1). Two 12-Fr two-lumen hemodialysis catheters (arrow) were aseptically and percutaneously inserted under ultrasonography guidance into the right jugular vein and one of the femoral veins with a femoral-jugular pattern to prevent self-recirculation and improve the clearance efficiency. Systemic heparinization was used to maintain the activated partial thromboplastin time ratio (aPTTr) 1.5–2.0 × that of the control. The continuous venous, arterial line and filter pressures were monitored in the Prismaflex device.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The connection of hemofiltration and extracorporeal oxygenator.

Protocol

After priming, the Prismaflex device was connected to the patient and the extracorporeal blood flow was progressively increased to 300-400 ml/min. In the beginning, a flow test was done to assess the efficiency of CO₂ clearance of the membranes. Pre- and post-oxygenator blood PCO₂ were compared when the sweep flow was adjusted to 0, 5, 10, and 15 L/min, and back to 0 L/min. Then, the sweep-gas flow through the ECCO₂R was switched on the level with the best clearance efficiency. The changes of CO₂ clearance with time were also collected.

Half an hour later after, according to the arterial PaCO₂, the patients were divided into two groups. If the PaCO₂ decreased to lower than 50 mmHg, VT was gradually reduced from 6 to 5, 4.5 every 30 min until the PaCO₂ returned to the original level and the pH > 7.2. If the PaCO₂ still remained above 50 mmHg, the VT would not be changed and the ECCO₂R device was only used to reduce the hypercapnia. Refractory hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia could be managed at the attending physician's discretion, with recruitment maneuver, prone positioning, and so on. The flowchart is shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Flowchart of the study.

Data Collection

Ventilator settings (VT, PEEP, RR, Pplat, minutes ventilation, and FiO₂), hemodynamic parameters (MAP, HR, and vasopressor dose), arterial blood-gas values (pH, PaO₂, PaCO₂, HCO³⁻, and lactate), heparin dose, and aPTTr were collected at baseline. After the run-in time, 30 min, 6 h, and 24 h after the connection, these values were also collected. Other variables such as complete blood count, liver function, and renal function were obtained daily. Respiratory-system compliance, driving pressure, and the mechanical power were calculated according to the standard formulas.

Statistical Analyses

Results are expressed as median (IQR) when abnormal distribution, and as mean ± SD when normal distribution, and both p < 0.05 defined statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using non-parameter analysis in chi-square test for comparison between different time intervals when distributed abnormally and using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures, followed by a post-hoc test, when distributed normally. Analyses were computed with IBM SPSS, version 23.0.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software.

Results

Thirty-two patients with ARDS were involved, and lung protective strategy worked in 17 patients with PaCO₂ <50 mmHg, and three patients died within 24 h after admission. After the adjustment of ventilator parameters, PaCO₂ was still above 50 mmHg (64.5 [56–88.75] mmHg) in 12 patients and the ECCO₂R devices were applied. At baseline, all these patients received protective ventilation with VT set at 5.94 ± 0.18 ml/kg PBW and PEEP at 6 [5.25, 8.0] cmH₂O, the respiratory rate was 32.58 ± 3.55 bpm, and the platform pressure and the driving pressure were 34.08 ± 6.91 mmHg and 27.17 ± 5.98 mmHg (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

The mean blood flow was 342.5 ± 49.20 ml/min, and in the flow test, when the sweep-gas flow was set at 10 L/min, the CO₂ clearance reached the best efficiency, 45.91 ± 7.70 ml/min. In all these patients, the flow was set at 10 L/min during the process. After the application of the ECCO₂R device, the PaCO₂ in all the patients decreased, and during the 24 h, the CO₂ clearance nearly did not change little with time (Figure 3). There was no significant correlation between the CO₂ clearance and the start PaCO₂, the DP, and lung compliance.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. The CO₂ clearance with the ECCO₂R. (A) The CO₂ clearance rate at different levels of sweep-gas flow. (B) The PaCO₂ levels of all the 12 patients before and after the ECCO₂R. (C) The CO₂ clearance rate with time ^*p < 0.05; ns, no statistical significance.

In eight of these patients, the PaCO₂ could decrease below 50 mmHg, and the VT was reduced every 30 min until the PaCO₂ returned; in the other four patients, the PaCO₂ was still above 50 mmHg, and VT was not reduced. According to whether the VT was adjusted, we divided the 12 patients into two groups, adjusted group (n = 8) and unadjusted group (n = 4). In the adjusted group, 6 h after the flow test, VT was decreased from 5.9 ± 0.16 to 5.08 ± 0.43 ml/kg PBW (p < 0.01), and DP and Pplat were also decreased significantly from 23.5 ± 2.72 mmHg and 29.88 ± 3.04 mmHg to 18.5 ± 2.62 mmHg (p < 0.01) and 24.75 ± 3.41 mmHg (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the mechanical power decreased from 21.25 ± 2.45 to 18.37 ± 2.76 mmHg, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.16). Twenty-four hours later, the DP and Pplat slightly increased, but were still significantly reduced compared with the baseline (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. Evaluation of VT, Pplat, DP, and mechanical power when tidal volume was reduced on ECCO₂R in the adjusted group. Vt, tidal volume; Pplat, end-inspiratory plateau pressure; DP, driving pressure; MP, mechanical power. ^*p < 0.05 vs. Baseline.

In the unadjusted group, 6 h after the test, PaCO₂ decreased from 94 [86.25, 100.3] mmHg to 80 [67.50,85.25] mmHg, but with no statistical significant difference (p = 0.0571). Twenty-four hours later, the PaCO₂ increased slightly again.

Discussion

The result of this single-center, prospective study showed that, in a group of COVID-19 ARDS patients with refractory hypercapnia and extremely low compliance, a low-flow ECCO₂R system based on the RRT platform can easily and safely reduce the PaCO₂ level and significantly decrease the Pplat and driving pressure in moderate hypercapnia patients.

Hypercapnia was common with lung protective volume ventilation in COVID-19-related ARDS patients and could be corrected with an intermediate tidal volume (7–8 ml/kg PBW) in some patients (4, 5). The conditions were more severe in our ICU, as 37.5% (12/32) of the ARDS patients had refractory hypercapnia despite ventilated with higher DP and higher respiratory rate than usual, and the lung compliance of our patients were relatively lower than reported in other centers. As in these patients, the hypercapnia occurred in the late stage of this disease in critical patients, which was 43.5 [32.5–47] days after the symptom onset, a reminder that the disease was still in progression at that time. Second, the bilateral diffuse ground-glass opacities and reticulation, compensatory emphysema, architectural distortion, and traction bronchiectasis were typical radiographic features on the CT in severe patients (14, 15), which indicated increased pulmonary dead space in these patients. Last, pathological findings such as exudation and mucous plug with fibrinous exudate in the alveoli could cause ventilatory disfunction.

Although, in the early 1990s, the concept of permissive hypercapnia was proposed for patients with acute lung injury, more studies have reported that hypercapnia has a lot of harmful effects, which include inhibition of cell membrane repair, impairment of alveolar fluid clearance, suppression of innate immunity and host defense (16–18), and significant hemodynamic consequences such as pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction (19). Recent data suggest an association between values of PaCO₂ > 50 mmHg and increased mortality (8); therefore, CO₂ clearance is a necessary treatment in these patients. The present study showed that CO₂ clearance could be reached at 45.91 ± 7.70 ml/min, with the low-flow ECCO₂R device with RRT platform. None of the severe adverse events occurred, although various AEs (e.g., cannulation-related accidents, hemorrhage, pump malfunction, and membrane clotting) were reported (12, 20, 21).

Apart from hypercapnia, the elevated driving pressure and the mechanical power were problems we were more worried about. Because of the low lung compliance of these patients, the driving pressure and the Pplat of these patients were still very high despite protective ventilation with 6 ml/kg. Actually, recent data have demonstrated that there is no safe upper limit for Pplat or DP, and the mortality rate with DP ≤ 14 cmH₂O is still as far as 20% (9, 22). As the ventilation variable with the best stratified risk, patient outcomes may be improved with the decreasing of DP owing to changes in ventilator settings such as VT (9), and the mechanical power also showed a strong correlation with mortality risk (10). Therefore, in our study, when the PaCO₂ was reduced with the low-flow ECCO₂R device, we preferred to decrease the DP and mechanical power first in the moderate hypercapnia group by reducing the VT gradually. In these patients, the DP was significantly reduced, and mechanical power was also reduced, although without statistical significance.

Our results demonstrated that, in these special group of COVID-19 ARDS patients, this low-flow ECCO₂R system could be easily, safely, and efficiently applied, because the RRT platform is widely available, and it did not require specific venous access. As none of the medications had been proven to be effective in the critical patients with COVID-19, and the ECMO were not adequate in many ICUs (11), this low-flow ECCO₂R system could provide a new way of correcting the respiratory acidosis and decreasing the DP, apart from the traditional methods such as prone positioning, recruitment maneuver, nitric oxide, and so on. It may help in the effort to reduce mortality in this global campaign against COVID-19.

Several limitations of our work should be addressed. First, only 12 critically ill patients were included. Although this system has been proven to be effective and safe in mild-to-moderate ARDS patients (12), because of the shortage of resources, only patients with the most needs were included, which were the refractory hypercapnia patients. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, which was not driven by formal hypotheses, the sample size calculation was waived. Instead, we hope that the findings present here will encourage a larger cohort study in these special patients. Second, the CO₂ removal rate of this system was lower than those reported in other studies (23), and the lower blood flows and catheters with faster flow rate could be considered to improve the CO₂ removal rate. Last, this study was mainly conducted to prove the feasibility of such an ECCO₂R system applied to refractory hypercapnia patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, and the system was limited to a period of 24 h, as there was a theoretical risk of rupture of the circuit, and the influence of the outcome of these patients was limited.

Conclusion

We reported a group of COVID-19 ARDS patients with refractory hypercapnia and extremely low compliance and have demonstrated that a low-flow ECCO₂R system based on the RRT platform enabled CO₂ removal and could also decrease the DP and Pplat significantly. This less-invasive ECCO₂R technique was easily and safely implemented and provided a new way for intensivists in the global campaign against COVID-19.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

XZ and YL: study conceptualization and writing—review and editing. XD, HC, HuZ, HoZ, and HH: study design. XD, HC, HuZ, HoZ, HH, WC, CW, WJ, YQ, ZL, JW, XY, TL, and SZ: methodology. XD, HC, HuZ, and HoZ: formal analysis and investigation. XD, HC, and HuZ: writing—original draft preparation. All authors commented on a previous version of the manuscript and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant number 2020YFC0861000), the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (No. 2020-I2M-CoV19-001), the China International Medical Exchange 2020 CMB Open Competition Program (No. 20-381), and Chinese Medical Information and big data Association (CHMIA) Special Fund for Emergency Project.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

1. Ruan Q, Yang K, Wang W, Jiang L, Song J. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med. (2020) 46:846–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05991-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Qiu H, Tong Z, Ma P, Hu M, Peng Z, Wu W, et al. China critical care clinical trials: intensive care during the coronavirus epidemic. Intensive Care Med. (2020) 46:576–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05966-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L, et al. Camporota: COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. (2020) 46:1099–102. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Pan C, Chen L, Lu C, Zhang W, Xia JA, Sklar MC, et al. Lung recruitability in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 201:1294–7. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202003-0527LE

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Liu X, Liu X, Xu Y, Xu Z, Huang Y, Chen S, et al. Ventilatory ratio in hypercapnic mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2020) 201:1297–9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202002-0373LE

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Sharabi K, Hurwitz A, Simon AJ, Beitel GJ, Morimoto RI, Rechavi G, et al. Elevated CO2 levels affect development, motility, and fertility and extend life span in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2009) 106:4024–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900309106

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Mekontso Dessap A, Charron C, Devaquet J, Aboab J, Jardin F, Brochard L, et al. Impact of acute hypercapnia and augmented positive end-expiratory pressure on right ventricle function in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. (2009) 35:1850–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1569-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Nin N, Muriel A, Penuelas O, Brochard L, Lorente JA, Ferguson ND, et al. Severe hypercapnia and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. (2017) 43:200–8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4611-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa EL, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. (2015) 372:747–55. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1410639

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Das A, Camporota L, Hardman JG, Bates DG. What links ventilator driving pressure with survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome? A computational study. Respir Res. (2019) 20:29. doi: 10.1186/s12931-019-0990-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Schmidt M, Hajage D, Lebreton G, Monsel A, Voiriot G, Levy D, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. (2020) 8:1121–31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30328-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Schmidt M, Jaber S, Zogheib E, Godet T, Capellier G, Combes A. Feasibility and safety of low-flow extracorporeal CO2 removal managed with a renal replacement platform to enhance lung-protective ventilation of patients with mild-to-moderate ARDS. Crit Care. (2018) 22:122. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2038-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Peperstraete H, Eloot S, Depuydt P, De Somer F, Roosens C, Hoste E. Low flow extracorporeal CO2 removal in ARDS patients: a prospective short-term crossover pilot study. BMC Anesthesiol. (2017) 17:155. doi: 10.1186/s12871-017-0445-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Zhang W. Imaging changes of severe COVID-19 pneumonia in advanced stage. Intensive Care Med. (2020) 46:841–3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05990-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Zhao W, Zhong Z, Xie X, Yu Q, Liu J. Relation between chest CT findings and clinical conditions of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia: a multicenter study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2020). 214:1–6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.22976

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

16. Curley G, Laffey JG, Kavanagh PB. Bench-to-bedside review: carbon dioxide. Crit Care. (2010) 14:220. doi: 10.1186/cc8926

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Doerr CH, Gajic O, Berrios JC, Caples S, Abdel M, Lymp JF, et al. Hypercapnic acidosis impairs plasma membrane wound resealing in ventilator-injured lungs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2005) 171:1371–7. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200309-1223OC

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Vadasz I, Hubmayr RD, Nin N, Sporn PH, Sznajder IJ. Hypercapnia: a nonpermissive environment for the lung. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. (2012) 46:417–21. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2011-0395PS

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Vieillard-Baron A, Matthay M, Teboul JL, Bein T, Schultz M, Magder S, et al. Experts' opinion on management of hemodynamics in ARDS patients: focus on the effects of mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med. (2016) 42:739–49. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4326-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Bein T, Weber-Carstens S, Goldmann A, Muller T, Staudinger T, Brederlau J, et al. Lower tidal volume strategy (approximately 3 ml/kg) combined with extracorporeal CO2 removal versus 'conventional' protective ventilation (6 ml/kg) in severe ARDS: the prospective randomized Xtravent-study. Intensive Care Med. (2013) 39:847–56. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2787-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Braune S, Sieweke A, Brettner F, Staudinger T, Joannidis M, Verbrugge S, et al. The feasibility and safety of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to avoid intubation in patients with COPD unresponsive to noninvasive ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (ECLAIR study): multicentre case-control study. Intensive Care Med. (2016) 42:1437–44. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4452-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Sahetya SK, Mancebo J, Brower GR. Fifty years of research in ARDS. Vt selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2017) 196:1519–25. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201708-1629CI

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Allardet-Servent J, Castanier M, Signouret T, Soundaravelou R, Lepidi A, Seghboyan MJ. Safety and efficacy of combined extracorporeal CO2 removal and renal replacement therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute kidney injury: the pulmonary and renal support in acute respiratory distress syndrome study. Crit Care Med. (2015) 43:2570–81. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001296

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar