We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Utilization and outcomes of extracorporeal CO 2 removal (ECCO 2 R): Systematic review and meta-analysis of arterio-venous and veno-venous ECCO 2 R approaches.
Artificial Organs 2022 May
INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2 R) provides respiratory support to patients suffering from hypercapnic respiratory failure by utilizing an extracorporeal shunt and gas exchange membrane to remove CO2 from either the venous (VV-ECCO2 R) or arterial (AV-ECCO2 R) system before return into the venous site. AV-ECCO2 R relies on the patient's native cardiac function to generate pressures needed to deliver blood through the extracorporeal circuit. VV-ECCO2 R utilizes a mechanical pump and can be used to treat patients with inadequate native cardiac function. We sought to evaluate the existing evidence comparing the subgroups of patients supported on VV and AV-ECCO2 R devices.
METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies published between 2000 and 2019. Demographic information, medical indications, perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes were extracted for systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies including 826 patients were reviewed. 60% of patients (497/826) were supported on VV-ECCO2 R. The most frequent indications were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [69%, (95%CI: 53%-82%)] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [49%, (95%CI: 37%-60%)]. ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in patients supported on VV-ECCO2 R compared to AV-ECCO2 R [15 (95%CI: 7-23) vs. 42 (95%CI: 17-67) days, p = 0.05]. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different [27% (95%CI: 18%-38%) vs. 36% (95%CI: 24%-51%), p = 0.26].
CONCLUSION: Both VV and AV-ECCO2 R provided clinically meaningful CO2 removal with comparable mortality.
METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify all relevant studies published between 2000 and 2019. Demographic information, medical indications, perioperative variables, and clinical outcomes were extracted for systematic review and meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies including 826 patients were reviewed. 60% of patients (497/826) were supported on VV-ECCO2 R. The most frequent indications were acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [69%, (95%CI: 53%-82%)] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [49%, (95%CI: 37%-60%)]. ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in patients supported on VV-ECCO2 R compared to AV-ECCO2 R [15 (95%CI: 7-23) vs. 42 (95%CI: 17-67) days, p = 0.05]. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different [27% (95%CI: 18%-38%) vs. 36% (95%CI: 24%-51%), p = 0.26].
CONCLUSION: Both VV and AV-ECCO2 R provided clinically meaningful CO2 removal with comparable mortality.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app