Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal requirements for ultraprotective mechanical ventilation: Mathematical model predictions

John Kenneth Leypoldt,Jacques Goldstein,Dominique Pouchoulin,Kai Harenski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13601
2019-12-15
Artificial Organs
Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Extracorporeal carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) removal (ECCO<sub>2</sub>R) facilitates the use of low tidal volumes during protective or ultraprotective mechanical ventilation when managing patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, the rate of ECCO<sub>2</sub>R required to avoid hypercapnia remains unclear. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>We determined ECCO<sub>2</sub>R rate requirements to maintain arterial partial pressure of CO<sub>2</sub> (PaCO<sub>2</sub>) at clinically desirable levels in mechanically‐ventilated ARDS patients using a six‐compartment mathematical model of CO<sub>2</sub> and oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>) biochemistry and whole‐body transport with the inclusion of an ECCO<sub>2</sub>R device for extracorporeal veno‐venous removal of CO<sub>2</sub>. The model assumes steady state conditions. Model compartments were lung capillary blood, arterial blood, venous blood, post‐ECCO<sub>2</sub>R venous blood, interstitial fluid and tissue cells, with CO<sub>2</sub> and O<sub>2</sub> distribution within each compartment; biochemistry included equilibrium among bicarbonate and non‐bicarbonate buffers and CO<sub>2</sub> and O<sub>2</sub> binding to hemoglobin to elucidate Bohr and Haldane effects. O<sub>2</sub> consumption and CO<sub>2</sub> production rates were assumed proportional to predicted body weight (PBW) and adjusted to achieve reported arterial partial pressure of O<sub>2</sub> and a PaCO<sub>2</sub> level of 46 mmHg at a tidal volume of 7.6 mL/kg PBW without an ECCO<sub>2</sub>R device based on average data from LUNG SAFE. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>ECCO<sub>2</sub>R rates required to achieve mild permissive hypercapnia (PaCO<sub>2</sub> of 46 mmHg) at a ventilation frequency or respiratory rate of 20.8/min during mechanical ventilation increased when tidal volumes decreased from 7.6 to 3 mL/kg PBW. Higher ECCO<sub>2</sub>R rates were required to achieve normocapnia (PaCO<sub>2</sub> of 40 mmHg). Model simulations also showed that required ECCO<sub>2</sub>R rates were lower when ventilation frequencies were increased from 20.8/min to 26/min. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>The current mathematical model predicts that ECCO<sub>2</sub>R rates resulting in clinically desirable PaCO<sub>2</sub> levels at tidal volumes of 5‐6 mL/kg PBW can likely be achieved in mechanically‐ventilated ARDS patients with current technologies; use of ultraprotective tidal volumes (3‐4 mL/kg PBW) may be challenging unless high mechanical ventilation frequencies are used. </p></section>
engineering, biomedical,transplantation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?