Open Access

Bench to bedside review: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal, past present and future

  • Matthew E Cove1,
  • Graeme MacLaren2, 3,
  • William J Federspiel1, 4, 5 and
  • John A Kellum1, 4Email author
Critical Care201216:232

DOI: 10.1186/cc11356

Published: 21 September 2012


Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has a substantial mortality rate and annually affects more than 140,000 people in the USA alone. Standard management includes lung protective ventilation but this impairs carbon dioxide clearance and may lead to right heart dysfunction or increased intracranial pressure. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal has the potential to optimize lung protective ventilation by uncoupling oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance. The aim of this article is to review the carbon dioxide removal strategies that are likely to be widely available in the near future. Relevant published literature was identified using PubMed and Medline searches. Queries were performed by using the search terms ECCOR, AVCO2R, VVCO2R, respiratory dialysis, and by combining carbon dioxide removal and ARDS. The only search limitation imposed was English language. Additional articles were identified from reference lists in the studies that were reviewed. Several novel strategies to achieve carbon dioxide removal were identified, some of which are already commercially available whereas others are in advanced stages of development.


The reported incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) ranges from 7 to 59 per 100,000 people [1, 2], and is associated with a mortality rate of 40 to 45%. This rate remains unacceptably high despite the introduction of lung protective ventilation and, although hospital mortality may be slowly decreasing, ICU and 28 day mortality have remained constant [1, 3]. Failure to implement lung protective ventilation (LPV) may be one of the reasons ICU mortality rates have remained unchanged [46]. When surveyed, health care providers reported that hypercapnia or its related effects were significant barriers to achieving LPV [7]. Hypercapnia complicated 14% of patients in the large ARDS network on the use of LPV [8]. However, patients with a high risk of death were excluded. In a study of severe ARDS, where tidal volumes were adjusted to target a mean airway pressure less than 28 cmH2O, all patients experienced hypercapnia [9]. As evidence emerges that tidal volumes <6 might further reduce mortality [9, 10], alternative strategies to manage the inevitable hypercapnia must be considered.

Permissive hypercapnia is one approach, but it only improves mortality when patients are ventilated with high tidal volumes [8]. Such volumes should no longer be used since 6 is superior to 12 and <4 might be superior to 6 [911]. Although hypercapnia might have beneficial effects on oxygen delivery and attenuation of inflammation [12], it also harms injured lung through immunosuppression and impaired pulmonary epithelial repair [13, 14]. Furthermore, hypercapnia perpetuates right heart failure [15] and is undesirable in patients with elevated intracranial pressure. An alternative strategy to manage hypercapnia is extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCOR), a technology pioneered four decades ago [16] but only recently readily accessible through commercialization of several novel devices. ECCOR therefore deserves a fresh look and this review aims to provide an overview of devices currently available and those that may be available in the near future.

ECCOR in principle

ECCOR is designed to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) and, unlike extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO), does not provide significant oxygenation. A discussion of ECMO is beyond the scope of this article but is well reviewed elsewhere [17, 18]. In its simplest form, ECCOR consists of a drainage cannula placed in a large central vein, a pump, a membrane lung and a return cannula (Figure 1). Blood is pumped through the membrane 'lung' and CO2 is removed by diffusion. Membrane lungs are permeable to gases but not liquids. A flow of gas containing little or no CO2 runs along the other side of the membrane, ensuring the diffusion gradient favors CO2 removal.
Figure 1

Diagram demonstrating essential components of an extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal circuit.

In contrast to ECMO, where the need for oxygenation requires high blood flow rates, ECCOR allows much lower blood flow rates, a result of major differences in CO2 and oxygen (O2) kinetics. First, almost all the O2 in blood is carried by hemoglobin, which displays sigmoidal saturation kinetics. Assuming normal hemoglobin and venous O2, each liter of venous blood can only carry an extra 40 to 60 ml of O2 before the hemoglobin is saturated. Blood flows of 5 to 7 L.minute-1 are therefore required to supply enough O2 for an average adult (250 ml. minute-1). Conversely, most CO2 is transported as dissolved bicarbonate, displaying linear kinetics without saturation. Thus, 1 L of blood is capable of carrying more CO2 than O2, and 250 ml of CO2 can be removed from <1 L of blood. Second, CO2 diffuses more readily than O2 across extracorporeal membranes because of greater solubility [17].

The membrane lung

The membrane lung made long-term extracorporeal gas exchange feasible. Before membrane lungs, extracorporeal circuits achieved gas exchange by creating a direct air-blood interface, either bubbling air through blood or creating a thin film of blood on the surface of a rotating cylinder/disc. However, blood-air interfaces denature proteins, activate clotting and inflammatory pathways, and damage circulating cells [19]. Consequently, devices relying on blood-air interfaces cannot be used more than a few hours without serious complications.

The concept of placing a barrier between blood and air began with the observation that gas exchange occurred across cellophane tubing in hemodialysis machines [20]. This led to the development of membrane lungs consisting of gas permeable silicone-rubber mounted on a nylon mesh [21]. The nylon mesh provided structural strength and decreased leakage from random pinhole defects, which occur during the manufacture of thin silicone-rubber membranes [19]. Three major factors determine the amount of gas crossing membranes: the diffusion gradient, the membrane-blood contact time and the membrane diffusion characteristics.

The CO2 diffusion gradient is determined by the CO2 content of the blood and the air passing through the membrane lung, as well as the speed of the airflow. Membrane-blood contact time is determined by membrane geometry. In early devices, Theodore Kolobow arranged the membrane into a coil [22] and used a fabric with an irregular surface, increasing the surface area [23]. Hollow fiber membranes have now replaced coiled silicon-rubber membranes. Early fibers were constructed with microporous polypropylene. Micropores create microscopic blood-gas interfaces allowing efficient gas exchange, but also cause plasma leak. Recently, nonmicroporous poly-4-methyl-1-pentene (PMP) has been used; it provides superior gas exchange, better biocompatibility and is less susceptible to plasma leak [2426]. Adding covalently bound heparin to membrane surfaces enhances biocompatibility, and gas exchange has been improved by arranging fibers into a complex mat and running blood on the outside [27] (Figure 2). This arrangement allows perpendicular blood flow to the fibers, improving mass transfer by reducing the diffusion path length compared to parallel flow. Modern membrane lungs achieve adequate gas exchange with surface areas of 1 to 3 m2 (Table 1).
Figure 2

Diagram showing the basic principle of a membrane lung. Sweep gas passes through the hollow fibres. Hollow fibers are arranged in a complex mat. Image courtesy of Medos Medizintechnik AG (Stolberg, Germany).

Table 1

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal circuit components



Special features




Impeller elevated in electromagnetic field

Levotronix LLC Waltham, MA, USA



Impeller driven by electromagnetic field and has single sapphire bearing

Maquet, Rastatt, Germany



Impeller drive shaft supported by sealed bearings

Medtronic, Eden Praire, MN, USA



Diagonally streamed impeller, sealed bearings

Medos Medizintechnik AG, Stolberg, Germany

Membrane lung

Quadrox D

1.8 m2 surface area, 250 ml priming volume

Maquet, Rastatt, Germany


iLA membrane ventilator

1.3 m2 surface area, 175 ml priming volume

Novalung GmbH, Heilbronn, Germany


hilite 7000LT

1.9 m3 surface area, 275 ml priming volume

Medos Medizintechnik AG, Stolberg, Germany


Affinity NT

2.5 m2 surface area, 270 ml priming volume

Medtronic, Eden Praire, MN, USA

This list is not exhaustive, but demonstrates the range of products available. iLA, interventional lung assist.

The pump

Blood flow through ECCOR circuits can be achieved in one of two ways. In patients with sufficient arterial pressure, a pumpless system can be used where blood is driven out of an arterial cannula by high arterial pressures and returned through a venous cannula, often called arteriovenous CO2 removal (AVCO2R). Pumpless systems result in less blood trauma, but require large bore arterial cannulas and an adequate cardiac output. The alternative is to use a mechanical pump.

Early devices used roller or peristaltic pumps. Although cheap and reliable, these pumps were prone to blood trauma - for example, hemolysis - from compression and heating of blood components. Blood trauma is less of a problem at lower blood flow rates - for example, those used in dialysis. The introduction of rotary pumps has resulted in simpler yet effective systems that cause less blood trauma. Two main types of rotary pumps are used in ECCOR devices, centrifugal and diagonal flow pumps.

Centrifugal pumps use a radial rotating impeller to create a suction vortex that draws blood into the center of the pump and spins it outwards, imparting centrifugal momentum, which is converted into driving pressure. In diagonal flow pumps, impellor design is a mix of radial and axial geometry. Centrifugal pumps tend to generate high pressures and low flows, whereas diagonal pumps produce both high flows and high pressures [28]. Impellors are connected to a drive shaft, requiring bearings to support the rotational movement. Exposure of blood to typical bearings promotes clotting, causing deposition of coagulation debris that can seize the bearing. Some pumps use seals to protect the bearings, but these can wear out; other designs use biocompatible materials to construct the bearings. In the most advanced centrifugal pumps impellors are completely suspended in an electromagnetic field, eliminating the need for a drive shaft or bearings and reducing heating, minimizing blood trauma and lowering the incidence of mechanical failure.

Access cannula

Early clinical trials placed separate drainage and return cannulas in the saphenous veins [29, 30]. Modern cannulas are placed percutaneously in a femoral-femoral or femoral-jugular orientation. To maintain flow and minimize blood trauma, heparin-coated wire-reinforced cannulas are used. Recently, a high flow, wire-reinforced double-lumen catheter has been developed. It is placed via the right internal jugular vein and the drainage port (tip of the cannula) is advanced into the intra-hepatic inferior vena cava using ultrasound guidance [31]. In this orientation the return port aligns with the right atrium, minimizing recirculation. New ECCOR devices with flow rates comparable to those in dialysis use double-lumen cannulas similar to dialysis catheters [32, 33].

ECCOR in practice

The first clinical trial of extracorporeal respiratory support was published in 1979, and used the Kolobow spiral-coil membrane lung, a roller pump and venoarterial access to provide ECMO [34]. This trial found no difference between conventional treatment and ECMO. At about the same time Gattinoni and coworkers introduced ECCOR [35], but did not publish the first clinical trial until 1986, where patients with severe ARDS were selected for LPV combined with ECCOR (Kolobow spiral-coil membrane lung, and a roller pump). Observed mortality was 51% using this technique [29]. Subsequent work was initially encouraging [36] but a randomized controlled study in 1994 concluded that ECCOR conferred no survival advantage [30]. Importantly, complication rates were high with ECCOR, being discontinued in 33% of cases owing to bleeding, and 20% experiencing circuit clotting. Recently, new devices with lower complication rates have demonstrated improved survival when combined with ultra-protective ventilation [9]; some are already available whilst others are in advanced development. They can be broadly categorized into i) arteriovenous devices, ii) venovenous devices, iii) gas exchange catheters and iv) respiratory dialysis.

Arteriovenous carbon dioxide removal

AVCO2R is commercially available through Novalung (GmbH, Hechingen, Germany) and marketed as the interventional lung assist (iLA) membrane ventilator (Figure 3). The membrane lung, frequently called the 'Novalung', utilizes a low resistance design allowing blood flow using the patient's own arteriovenous pressure gradient. Cannulas are placed percutaneously in the femoral artery and vein [37, 38]. A similar system has been developed in the United States using the Affinity NT (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) [39, 40].
Figure 3

Image of the interventional lung assist (iLA), blood is propelled through the circuit by arterial pressure. Image courtesy of Novolung (GmbH, Hechingen, Germany).

Pumpless systems require an arteriovenous pressure gradient ≥60 mmHg, which is unsuitable for hemodynamically unstable patients. Further, cannulation of a major artery can result in distal ischemia [37], although measuring the artery diameter with ultrasound and selecting a cannula that occupies no more than 70% of the lumen reduces this risk [38]. AVCO2R has been successfully used to facilitate LPV in patients with ARDS [4143], severe asthma [44] and as a bridge to lung transplantation [45].

Venovenous carbon dioxide removal

Venovenous carbon dioxide removal (VVCO2R) requires a mechanical pump to propel blood through the circuit and can be broadly divided depending on whether the pump and membrane lung are separate components or incorporated into a single console. When separate components are used, the circuit is set up as described in Figure 1. Table 1 shows some of the different components that can be used. These circuits are more complicated to operate, often need flow rates >1 L.minute-1 and may need multidisciplinary support. The growth of programs in more general settings has provided impetus to simplify ECCOR, resulting in several devices where the pump and membrane lung are combined into one console.

iLA Activve

The iLA Activve mounts the Novalung and a diagonal flow pump together in one device. At higher blood flow rates this device can provide venovenous ECMO. Conceptually, this is the simplest method of providing ECCOR via a console, and although it does not provide any special benefits over separate components, the pump is designed to provide reliable flows throughout a large range of flow rates.


The Decap system (Hemodec, Salerno, Italy) uses a membrane lung in series with a hemodialysis filter and roller pump (Figure 4). The hemodialysis filter serves two purposes with regard to CO2 removal. First, it reduces the chance of bubble formation by increasing resistance within the membrane lung. Second, ultrafiltrate from the filter is returned to the blood stream prior to the membrane lung inflow. Since ultrafiltrate contains dissolved CO2, recirculating in this way allows additional CO2 removal by creating a greater flow rate through the membrane lung than the flow from the patient. Consequently, smaller membrane lungs can be used (0.3 to 1.35 m2) with lower flow rates (<500 ml.minute-1) than conventional ECCOR [33], resulting in similar anticoagulation requirements to continuous venovenous hemodialysis [46]. The Decap has been successfully used in adults and children [9, 47, 48].
Figure 4

Diagram showing the basic circuit design of the Decap (Hemodec, Salerno, Italy). Blood is pumped through a membrane lung in series with a dialysis filter, and ultrafiltrate is returned to the blood prior to the membrane. UF, ultrafiltrate.


The Hemolung (Alung Technologies, Pittsburgh, USA) is the latest device to enter the ECCOR arena. In this device the membrane lung and centrifugal pump are combined together, acting as one unit (Figure 5). Blood is drawn into the unit via a rotating impeller. The center contains a rotating core that accelerates blood towards a surrounding stationary fiber bundle. This is called active mixing; the rotating core generates disturbed blood flow patterns subjacent to the fiber membrane, reducing diffusional resistance and increasing gas exchange. As a result, CO2 removal is more efficient and achieved with a smaller membrane surface area and flows of 400 to 600 ml.minute-1, which allows use of smaller double-lumen catheters. The smaller membrane surface area, siloxane coating for plasma resistance and covalently bound heparin result in lower anticoagulation requirements [32]. Gas flow through the membrane lung is supplied under negative pressure, a safety feature preventing air embolism if the membrane is disrupted. The Hemolung enabled a 50% reduction in minute ventilation in animal trials and was recently successfully used in a clinical case series of five adults [49].
Figure 5

Cross sectional diagram of Hemolung (Alung Technologies, Pittsburgh, USA) showing rotating core that accelerate blood to the surrounding fiber bundle. Adjacent image shows the Hemolung console. Courtesy of Alung Technologies (Pittsburgh, USA).

Gas-exchange catheters

Several gas-exchange catheters have been developed but only one, the intravenocaval oxygenator and carbon dioxide removal device (IVOX), has been used clinically. These devices package hollow fiber membrane lungs into a catheter that is small enough to be placed in the vena cava, that is, <15 mm in diameter. Intracorporeal catheters are conceptually attractive because they are exposed to 2 to 3 L.minute-1 of blood flow and therefore CO2 removal is not flow limited.

The IVOX was designed for both oxygenation and CO2 removal. Orienting 'crimped' membrane fibers in a spiral arrangement maximized gas exchange by increasing surface area and creating disturbed blood flow patterns over the membrane [50]. Disturbed blood flow provides convection velocity towards the fiber surfaces, reducing diffusional resistance. The membrane surface of the IVOX ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 m2 [51] and gas flow was applied under negative pressure; an important safety feature in intracorporeal devices since there is no other opportunity to prevent air embolism if the membrane is disrupted.

In animal trials the IVOX consistently removed 40 ml.minute-1 of CO2, but oxygen delivery was less reliable. Clinical experience was mixed; the IVOX facilitated lower ventilator settings in some studies [52], but made no difference in others [53, 54]. On the whole, gas exchange was too limited and placement associated with high complication rates from bleeding and thrombosis [52]. Commercial development has subsequently ceased.

Future directions and devices in development

Several of the above devices are undergoing clinical trials, often in combination with LPV (Table 2). Other promising approaches are still in development, in particular more efficient gas exchange catheters and respiratory dialysis. Novel methods to maximize CO2 removal, such as blood acidification, are also under investigation [55].
Table 2

Current active trials from accessed April 2012

Study title




Extracorporeal CO2 removal in COPD (DECOPD)

Decap Smart

University of Turin, Italy


Pulmonary and Renal Support during Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PARSA)

Neonatal membrane lung (HiLite 800 LT, Medos) within dialysis circuit (Multifiltrate kit 7, CVVH 1000, Fresenius)

Hopital Ambroise Pare, France


Low-flow ECCO2-R and 4 ml/kg Tidal Volume vs. 6 ml/kg Tidal Volume to Enhance Protection From Ventilator Induced Lung Injury in Acute Lung Injury (ELP)

Not specified

University of Turin, Italy

Not yet recruiting

Gas-exchange catheters in development

Following the IVOX, attention has focused on developing a catheter that meets 50% of adult gas exchange requirement. Several ingenious approaches are being studied. The first approach is generation of active mixing within the catheter. This was initially attempted using an intraaortic balloon pump close to the shaft of the IVOX catheter [56]. However, the membrane fibers were not fixed and fiber movement opposed active mixing. The Hattler catheter solved this using a rigid fiber mat constructed around a central balloon [57] (Figure 6). Rapid pulsation of the balloon directed blood flow over the membrane fibers, causing active mixing. In this design membrane fibers do not occupy the whole lumen of the vein, causing less fiber drag on blood flow. In animal trials the Hattler catheter exchanged CO2 at 305 ml.minute-1.m-2, almost double the IVOX rate at similar CO2 concentrations [58, 59].
Figure 6

Diagram of the Hattler catheter showing the rigid hollow fiber bundle surrounding a pulsating ballon.

Active mixing can also be achieved by rotating the fiber bundle; a strategy used in the dynamic intravascular lung assist device (D-ILAD) [60]. Although the D-ILAD was almost twice as efficient as balloon-pulsating catheters, rotating fibers could damage vessel walls upon contact. Recently, the Hattler catheter has been modified by replacing the balloon with a series of small impellers. It has been successfully used in animals and has CO2 exchange rates similar to the D-ILAD [61].

Finally, in addition to active mixing, CO2 exchange has been improved by covalent immobilization of carbonic anhydrase to the surface of the hollow fiber membrane [62]. As a result, CO2 is more rapidly generated from bicarbonate, facilitating removal.

Respiratory dialysis

In the 1980s, several groups reported the results of animal experiments using dialysis to remove CO2 in the form of bicarbonate. This approach is appealing because CO2 is transported in the form of bicarbonate, which moves freely across dialysis membranes. Conventional hemodialysis uses bicarbonate-containing dialysates to correct the metabolic acidosis accompanying renal failure, but bicarbonate-free dialysates can remove enough CO2 to replace pulmonary ventilation in dog models [63]. Currently, respiratory dialysis is limited by the inability to maintain electrolyte concentrations and pH whilst removing bicarbonate. Several approaches to replace bicarbonate have been attempted using sodium hydroxide, tromethamine (THAM), and organic anions. However, fluid gain, hyperchloremic acidosis, hemolysis, cardiac arrhythmias and acid-base derangements have prevented successful long-term use [64, 65].

Recently, hemofiltration has been used to remove bicarbonate. One group used sodium hydroxide in a post-filter replacement fluid and maintained pH and CO2 within physiological range for 18 hours in hypoventilated sheep. However, hyperchloremic acidosis developed and blood flow rates exceeding 500 ml.minute-1 would be needed to remove sufficient CO2 in humans [66]. Another group removed bicarbonate by using pre-filter replacement fluid containing THAM. Physiologic CO2 levels and pH were maintained for 1.5 hours, but it was not determined whether THAM had the same long-term problems seen in the hemodialysis models [67]. Nonetheless, respiratory dialysis holds much promise if the problems of electrolyte and acid-base disturbances can be solved.


Several modalities of providing ECCOR are now either available or in development. As evidence favoring low-volume, low-pressure ventilation in ARDS accumulates, the argument for applying these ventilation strategies in all critically ill patients will gather momentum. However, successful application is dependent upon a safe, reliable approach for CO2 removal.

Simpler more efficient ECCOR devices requiring lower blood flow rates and smaller access cannulas promise to improve safety and ease of use. Novel designs, such as the Decap, can serve the dual purpose of renal support and ECCOR. However, other solutions currently in development, gas exchange catheters and respiratory dialysis, promise to be minimally invasive, easy to initiate and well tolerated. They may even eliminate the need for intubation in some forms of respiratory failure, where CO2 is the primary problem [68]. Familiarity with devices already available can change our approach to ARDS and prime the ICU for the arrival of devices that may revolutionize our approach to respiratory failure.



acute respiratory distress syndrome


arteriovenous CO2 removal


dynamic intravascular lung assist device


extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal


extracorporeal membrane oxygen


interventional lung assist


lung protective ventilation




venovenous carbon dioxide removal.



MEC acknowledges support from NIH grant HL07820. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute or the National Institutes of Health. The authors acknowledge Marquet (Rastatt, Germany) Medos (Medizintechnik AG, Stolberg, Germany), Novalung GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) and Hemolung (Alung Technologies, Pittsburgh, USA) for their assistance in producing the figures.

Authors’ Affiliations

Clinical Research, Research, Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Crit Care Med, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Health System
Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children's Hospital
McGowan Institute of Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
Department of Bioengineering and Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh


  1. Villar J, Blanco J, Anon JM, Santos-Bouza A, Blanch L, Ambros A, Gandia F, Carriedo D, Mosteiro F, Basaldua S, Fernandez RL, Kacmarek RM: The ALIEN study: incidence and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the era of lung protective ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2011, 37: 1932-1941. 10.1007/s00134-011-2380-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Rubenfeld GD, Caldwell E, Peabody E, Weaver J, Martin DP, Neff M, Stern EJ, Hudson LD: Incidence and outcomes of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353: 1685-1693. 10.1056/NEJMoa050333.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Phua J, Badia JR, Adhikari NK, Friedrich JO, Fowler RA, Singh JM, Scales DC, Stather DR, Li A, Jones A, Gattas DJ, Hallett D, Tomlinson G, Stewart TE, Ferguson ND: Has mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome decreased over time?: A systematic review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009, 179: 220-227.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Weinert CR, Gross CR, Marinelli WA: Impact of randomized trial results on acute lung injury ventilator therapy in teaching hospitals. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003, 167: 1304-1309. 10.1164/rccm.200205-478OC.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Young MP, Manning HL, Wilson DL, Mette SA, Riker RR, Leiter JC, Liu SK, Bates JT, Parsons PE: Ventilation of patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: Has new evidence changed clinical practice?. Crit Care Med. 2004, 32: 1260-1265. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000127784.54727.56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kalhan R, Mikkelsen M, Dedhiya P, Christie J, Gaughan C, Lanken PN, Finkel B, Gallop R, Fuchs BD: Underuse of lung protective ventilation: Analysis of potential factors to explain physician behavior. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 300-306. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000198328.83571.4A.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rubenfeld GD, Cooper C, Carter G, Thompson BT, Hudson LD: Barriers to providing lung-protective ventilation to patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2004, 32: 1289-1293. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000127266.39560.96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kregenow DA, Rubenfeld GD, Hudson LD, Swenson ER: Hypercapnic acidosis and mortality in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Terragni PP, Del Sorbo L, Mascia L, Urbino R, Martin EL, Birocco A, Faggiano C, Quintel M, Gattinoni L, Ranieri VM: Tidal volume lower than 6 ml/kg enhances lung protection: role of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Anesthesiology. 2009, 111: 826-835. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b764d2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hager DN, Krishnan JA, Hayden DL, Brower RG: Tidal volume reduction in patients with acute lung injury when plateau pressures are not high. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005, 172: 1241-1245. 10.1164/rccm.200501-048CP.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Network TARDS: Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342: 1301-1308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Curley G, Laffey JG, Kavanagh BP: Bench-to-bedside review: carbon dioxide. Crit Care. 2010, 14: 220-10.1186/cc8926.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. O'Croinin DF, Nichol AD, Hopkins N, Boylan J, O'Brien S, O'Connor C, Laffey JG, McLoughlin P: Sustained hypercapnic acidosis during pulmonary infection increases bacterial load and worsens lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2008, 36: 2128-2135. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817d1b59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. O'Toole D, Hassett P, Contreras M, Higgins BD, McKeown ST, McAuley DF, O'Brien T, Laffey JG: Hypercapnic acidosis attenuates pulmonary epithelial wound repair by an NF-kappaB dependent mechanism. Thorax. 2009, 64: 976-982. 10.1136/thx.2008.110304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Mekontso Dessap A, Charron C, Devaquet J, Aboab J, Jardin F, Brochard L, Vieillard-Baron A: 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: 1850-1858. 10.1007/s00134-009-1569-2.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolobow T, Gattinoni L, Tomlinson TA, Pierce JE: Control of breathing using an extracorporeal membrane lung. Anesthesiology. 1977, 46: 138-141. 10.1097/00000542-197702000-00012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Maclaren G, Combes A, Bartlett RH: Contemporary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure: life support in the new era. Intensive Care Med. 2011, 38: 210-220.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gattinoni L, Carlesso E, Langer T: Clinical review: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2011, 15: 243-10.1186/cc10490.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim MW: The history of extracorporeal oxygenators. Anaesthesia. 2006, 61: 984-995. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04781.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolff WJ, Berk HT, ter Welle M, van der LEYAJ, van Dijk EC, van Noordwijk J: The artificial kidney: a dialyser with a great area. 1944. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1997, 8: 1959-1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bramson ML, Osborn JJ, Main FB, O'Brien MF, Wright JS, Gerbode F: A new disposable membrane oxygenator with integral heat exchange. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1965, 50: 391-400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolobow T, Bowman RL: Construction and evaluation of an alveolar membrane artificial heart-lung. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1963, 9: 238-243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolobow T, Spragg RG, Pierce JE, Zapol WM: Extended term (to 16 days) partial extracorporeal blood gas exchange with the spiral membrane lung in unanesthetized lambs. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs. 1971, 17: 350-354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Peek GJ, Killer HM, Reeves R, Sosnowski AW, Firmin RK: Early experience with a polymethyl pentene oxygenator for adult extracorporeal life support. ASAIO J. 2002, 48: 480-482. 10.1097/00002480-200209000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Khoshbin E, Roberts N, Harvey C, Machin D, Killer H, Peek GJ, Sosnowski AW, Firmin RK: Poly-methyl pentene oxygenators have improved gas exchange capability and reduced transfusion requirements in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2005, 51: 281-287. 10.1097/01.MAT.0000159741.33681.F1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Toomasian JM, Schreiner RJ, Meyer DE, Schmidt ME, Hagan SE, Griffith GW, Bartlett RH, Cook KE: A polymethylpentene fiber gas exchanger for long-term extracorporeal life support. ASAIO J. 2005, 51: 390-397. 10.1097/01.mat.0000169111.66328.a8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaylor JD: Membrane oxygenators: current developments in design and application. J Biomed Eng. 1988, 10: 541-547. 10.1016/0141-5425(88)90113-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reul HM, Akdis M: Blood pumps for circulatory support. Perfusion. 2000, 15: 295-311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Mascheroni D, Marcolin R, Fumagalli R, Rossi F, Iapichino G, Romagnoli G, Uziel L, Agostoni A, et al: Low-frequency positive-pressure ventilation with extracorporeal CO2 removal in severe acute respiratory failure. JAMA. 1986, 256: 881-886. 10.1001/jama.1986.03380070087025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris AH, Wallace CJ, Menlove RL, Clemmer TP, Orme JFJ, Weaver LK, Dean NC, Thomas F, East TD, Pace NL, Suchyta MR, Beck E, Bombino M, Sittig DF, Bohm S, Hoffmann B, Becks H, Butler S, Pearl J, Rasmusson B: Randomized clinical trial of pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal for adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994, 149: 295-305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang D, Zhou X, Liu X, Sidor B, Lynch J, Zwischenberger JB: Wang-Zwische double lumen cannula-toward a percutaneous and ambulatory paracorporeal artificial lung. ASAIO J. 2008, 54: 606-611. 10.1097/MAT.0b013e31818c69ab.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Batchinsky AI, Jordan BS, Regn D, Necsoiu C, Federspiel WJ, Morris MJ, Cancio LC: Respiratory dialysis: reduction in dependence on mechanical ventilation by venovenous extracorporeal CO2 removal. Crit Care Med. 2011, 39: 1382-1387. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eda45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gramaticopolo S, Chronopoulos A, Piccinni P, Nalesso F, Brendolan A, Zanella M, Cruz DN, Ronco C: Extracorporeal CO2 removal - a way to achieve ultraprotective mechanical ventilation and lung support: the missing piece of multiple organ support therapy. Contrib Nephrol. 2010, 165: 174-184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Zapol WM, Snider MT, Hill JD, Fallat RJ, Bartlett RH, Edmunds LH, Morris AH, Peirce EC, Thomas AN, Proctor HJ, Drinker PA, Pratt PC, Bagniewski A, Miller RG: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe acute respiratory failure. A randomized prospective study. JAMA. 1979, 242: 2193-2196. 10.1001/jama.1979.03300200023016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gattinoni L, Kolobow T, Tomlinson T, Iapichino G, Samaja M, White D, Pierce J: Low-frequency positive pressure ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (LFPPV-ECCO2R): an experimental study. Anesth Analg. 1978, 57: 470-477.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Brunet F, Mira JP, Belghith M, Monchi M, Renaud B, Fierobe L, Hamy I, Dhainaut JF, Dall'ava-Santucci J: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal technique improves oxygenation without causing overinflation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994, 149: 1557-1562.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Bein T, Weber F, Philipp A, Prasser C, Pfeifer M, Schmid FX, Butz B, Birnbaum D, Taeger K, Schlitt HJ: A new pumpless extracorporeal interventional lung assist in critical hypoxemia/hypercapnia. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1372-1377. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215111.85483.BD.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zimmermann M, Bein T, Arlt M, Philipp A, Rupprecht L, Mueller T, Lubnow M, Graf BM, Schlitt HJ: Pumpless extracorporeal interventional lung assist in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective pilot study. Crit Care. 2009, 13: R10-10.1186/cc7703.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Conrad S, Zwischenberger J, Grier L, Alpard S, Bidani A: Total extracorporeal arteriovenous carbon dioxide removal in acute respiratory failure: a phase I clinical study. Intensive Care Med. 2001, 27: 1340-1351. 10.1007/s001340100993.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Conrad SA, Green R, Scott LK: Near-fatal pediatric asthma managed with pumpless arteriovenous carbon dioxide removal. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35: 2624-2629. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000288104.97602.B3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Iglesias M, Martinez E, Badia JR, Macchiarini P: Extrapulmonary ventilation for unresponsive severe acute respiratory distress syndrome after pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008, 85: 237-244. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.06.004. discussion 244View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bein T, Zimmermann M, Hergeth K, Ramming M, Rupprecht L, Schlitt HJ, Slutsky AS: Pumpless extracorporeal removal of carbon dioxide combined with ventilation using low tidal volume and high positive end-expiratory pressure in a patient with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anaesthesia. 2009, 64: 195-198. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05735.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson P, Frohlich S, Westbrook A: Use of extracorporeal membrane lung assist device (Novalung) in H1N1 patients. J Card Surg. 2011, 26: 449-452. 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2011.01261.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Elliot SC, Paramasivam K, Oram J, Bodenham AR, Howell SJ, Mallick A: Pumpless extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for life-threatening asthma. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35: 945-948. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000257462.04514.15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Bartosik W, Egan JJ, Wood AE: The Novalung interventional lung assist as bridge to lung transplantation for self-ventilating patients - initial experience. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011, 13: 198-200. 10.1510/icvts.2011.266346.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Livigni S, Maio M, Ferretti E, Longobardo A, Potenza R, Rivalta L, Selvaggi P, Vergano M, Bertolini G: Efficacy and safety of a low-flow veno-venous carbon dioxide removal device: results of an experimental study in adult sheep. Crit Care. 2006, 10: R151-10.1186/cc5082.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruberto F, Pugliese F, D'Alio A, Perrella S, D'Auria B, Ianni S, Anile M, Venuta F, Coloni GF, Pietropaoli P: Extracorporeal removal CO2 using a venovenous, low-flow system (Decapsmart) in a lung transplanted patient: a case report. Transplant Proc. 2009, 41: 1412-1414. 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.03.048.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Moscatelli A, Ottonello G, Nahum L, Lampugnani E, Puncuh F, Simonini A, Tumolo M, Tuo P: Noninvasive ventilation and low-flow veno-venous extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal as a bridge to lung transplantation in a child with refractory hypercapnic respiratory failure due to bronchiolitis obliterans. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2010, 11: e8-12. 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181b0123b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Burki N, Mani R, Herth F, Schmidt w, Teschler H, Bonin F: A novel extracoporeal CO2 removal system: application of the hemolung in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Med. 2011, 183: A1697-Google Scholar
  50. Mortensen JD, Berry G: Conceptual and design features of a practical, clinically effective intravenous mechanical blood oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange device (IVOX). Int J Artif Organs. 1989, 12: 384-389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Cox CSJ, Zwischenberger JB, Kurusz M: Development and current status of a new intracorporeal membrane oxygenator (IVOX). Perfusion. 1991, 6: 291-296. 10.1177/026765919100600409.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Conrad SA, Eggerstedt JM, Grier LR, Morris VF, Romero MD: Intravenacaval membrane oxygenation and carbon dioxide removal in severe acute respiratory failure. Chest. 1995, 107: 1689-1697. 10.1378/chest.107.6.1689.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Gentilello LM, Jurkovich GJ, Gubler KD, Anardi DM, Heiskell R: The intravascular oxygenator (IVOX): preliminary results of a new means of performing extrapulmonary gas exchange. J Trauma. 1993, 35: 399-404. 10.1097/00005373-199309000-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Murdoch LJ, Boyd OF, Mackay J, Bennett ED, Grounds RM: The peri-operative management of surgical insertion and removal of the intravenous oxygenator device (IVOX). A report of nine cases. Anaesthesia. 1993, 48: 845-848. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb07411.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Zanella A, Patroniti N, Isgro S, Albertini M, Costanzi M, Pirrone F, Scaravilli V, Vergnano B, Pesenti A: Blood acidification enhances carbon dioxide removal of membrane lung: an experimental study. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35: 1484-1487. 10.1007/s00134-009-1513-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Tao W, Schroeder T, Bidani A, Cardenas VJJ, Nguyen PD, Bradford DW, Traber DL, Zwischenberger JB: Improved gas exchange performance of the intravascular oxygenator by active blood mixing. ASAIO J. 1994, 40: M527-32. 10.1097/00002480-199407000-00056.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Federspiel WJ, Hout MS, Hewitt TJ, Lund LW, Heinrich SA, Litwak P, Walters FR, Reeder GD, Borovetz HS, Hattler BG: Development of a low flow resistance intravenous oxygenator. ASAIO J. 1997, 43: M725-730. 10.1097/00002480-199709000-00078.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Hattler BG, Lund LW, Golob J, Russian H, Lann MF, Merrill TL, Frankowski B, Federspiel WJ: A respiratory gas exchange catheter: In vitro and in vivo tests in large animals. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002, 124: 520-530. 10.1067/mtc.2002.123811.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zwischenberger JB, Nguyen TT, Tao W, Bush PE, Cox CS, Traber DL, Herndon DN, Bidani A: IVOX with gradual permissive hypercapnia: a new management technique for respiratory failure. J Surg Res. 1994, 57: 99-105. 10.1006/jsre.1994.1117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Makarewicz AJ, Mockros LF, Anderson RW: A dynamic intravascular artificial lung. ASAIO J. 1994, 40: M747-750. 10.1097/00002480-199407000-00099.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Mihelc KM, Frankowski BJ, Lieber SC, Moore ND, Hattler BG, Federspiel WJ: Evaluation of a respiratory assist catheter that uses an impeller within a hollow fiber membrane bundle. ASAIO J. 2009, 55: 569-574. 10.1097/MAT.0b013e3181bc2655.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Kaar JL, Oh HI, Russell AJ, Federspiel WJ: Towards improved artificial lungs through biocatalysis. Biomaterials. 2007, 28: 3131-3139. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.03.021.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Chang BS, Garella S: Complete extracorporeal removal of metabolic carbon dioxide by alkali administration and dialysis in apnea. Int J Artif Organs. 1983, 6: 295-298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Gille JP, Saunier C, Schrijen F, Hartemann D, Tousseul B: Metabolic CO2 removal by dialysis: THAM vs NaOH infusion. Int J Artif Organs. 1989, 12: 720-727.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Nolte SH, Benfer RH, Grau J: Extracorporeal CO2 removal with hemodialysis (ECBicCO2R): how to make up for the bicarbonate loss?. Int J Artif Organs. 1991, 14: 759-764.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Cressoni M, Zanella A, Epp M, Corti I, Patroniti N, Kolobow T, Pesenti A: Decreasing pulmonary ventilation through bicarbonate ultrafiltration: an experimental study. Crit Care Med. 2009, 37: 2612-2618. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a5668a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Russ M, Deja M, Ott S, Bedarf J, Keckel T, Hiebl B, Wagner JJ, Unger JK: Experimental high-volume hemofiltration with predilutional tris-hydroxymethylaminomethane for correction of low tidal volume ventilation-induced acidosis. Artif Organs. 2011, 35: E108-118. 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01204.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pesenti A, Patroniti N, Fumagalli R: Carbon dioxide dialysis will save the lung. Crit Care Med. 2010, 38: S549-S554.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© BioMed Central Ltd 2012