“High blood flow” versus “low blood flow” ECCO2R: how to classify—author’s reply

We sincerely thank Wang et al. [1] for their correspondence and thoughtful consideration of our article published in Critical Care [2]. We appreciate their acknowledgment of the valuable insights into lung protection provided by our work. Our study demonstrated that blood flow plays a predominant role in determining the feasibility of ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (≤ 3 mL/kg predicted body weight). We fully agree on the need for better standardization criteria for defining high- and low-blood-flow ECCO₂R devices in the future [3]. As noted by the authors, an internationally validated definition of these terms is still lacking [4].

As underlined by the authors of the correspondence there is some threshold variability in defining high- and low-blood-flow devices. In the Supernova study [5] devices were categorized as follows: lower extraction (Hemolung Respiratory Assist System, blood flow between 300 and 500 mL/mn) and higher extraction (iLA activve, Novalung, and Cardiohelp, Gettinge, blood flow between 800 and 1000 mL/mn). We adopted the same definition for low-blood-flow devices in our study. Regarding high-blood-flow devices, the Supernova study specified: “Blood flow with the iLA activve (Novalung) and Cardiohelp HLS 5.0 (Getinge) can range between 0.5 and 4.5 L/min but was limited by study protocol to 800–1000 mL/min.” Similarly, in our study protocol, we set limits for high blood flow rates (albeit slightly higher than in the Supernova study). This ensured no overlap between low- and high-blood-flow rates, avoiding the ambiguities of a “gray area” where classification might become problematic. Indeed, devices using almost similar blood flow could have been more difficult to classify.

The authors of the correspondence mention the risk of misclassification of devices. Interestingly, had we adjusted the cut-off between high and low blood flow to 800 mL/mn our results would have remained unchanged. Indeed, under real-life conditions, blood flow rates in our study were either above 1000 mL/min or below 500 mL/min. Consequently, whether the threshold was set at 800 or 1000 mL/min would not have affected our findings. While several cut-off values could have been chosen, in the absence of a consensus, we adopted this approach. Recent clinical and experimental studies have highlighted that the combination of blood flow and sweep gas flow is the key determinant of CO₂ removal efficiency [6, 7]. With sweep gas flow reaching 10 to 15 L/min (standardize to 10 L/min in our study), blood flow remains the primary modifiable factor for enhanced CO₂ removal, as we demonstrated.

Wang et al. [1] suggest prioritizing membrane performance. However, our study was not designed to assess the in vitro capabilities of different membranes and/or devices. Instead, it aimed to analyze the factors contributing to the failure of ultraprotective ventilation in a clinical, rather than an experimental, setting. Indeed, in vitro performance does not always translate to in vivo efficacy, particularly in critically ill patients with multiple organ failures. Even a membrane with optimal purification capacity may be less efficient if blood flow is low or subject to fluctuations. Theoretical blood flow rates should not be confused with actual blood flow rates measured under real conditions. The latter depend on multiple factors, including anticoagulation, hemodynamic status, cannula size, treatment interruptions, and circuit or membrane thrombosis. An observation applicable to all types of extracorporeal support: kidney [8], liver [9, 10], etc. Ultimately, optimal in vitro membrane performance does not necessarily equate to clinical efficacy in achieving ultra-low tidal volume ventilation.

The authors [1] also suggest that some low-blood-flow membranes may surpass the efficiency of high-blood-flow membranes. However, we did not find any solid published data to substantiate this hypothesis. In our study, the membrane surface areas were significantly different between the two groups. Membrane in the high blood flow group were systematically larger (1.3 m² vs. 0.32–0.8 m²). It is highly unlikely that a smaller membrane combined with lower blood flow would result in superior CO₂ extraction capacity, as previously confirmed in a secondary analysis of the Supernova study [11, 12].

The authors also raise concerns about device heterogeneity when using a high- and low-blood-flow classification [1]. As they as they rightly point out high-blood-flow devices may combine very different devices (pumpless arteriovenous devices and veno-venous devices). However, we did not include pumpless arteriovenous devices in our study. In our work, only one device was used in the high-blood-flow category. That said, we acknowledge that some heterogeneity exists among low-blood-flow devices.

We agree with the authors that CO₂ extraction rate could serve as a more precise classification method for low- and high-CO₂ extraction devices. However, actual CO₂ extraction should be measured rather than potential extraction. Normalizing this data based on membrane surface area is relevant only if the objective is membrane performance assessment. Keeping in mind that, regardless of membrane efficiency, blood flow (and sweep gas flow) will always be the primary determinants of the actual clinical efficacy of ECCO₂R therapy. We also support other suggestions made by the authors, including the potential benefits of device-specific subgroups. However, this would require larger patients cohorts in each subgroup to achieve statistical significance. Finally, integrating dynamic performance assessments into future trial designs would further enhance our understanding and clinical application of ECCO₂R therapy.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

ECCO₂R:

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal

CO₂ :

Carbon dioxide

1. Wang M, Yao Q, Zhu M. Questioning the classification of “high blood flow” versus “low blood flow” ECCO₂R in ultra-low tidal volume ventilation studies: a call for functional classification. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):121.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Monet C, Renault T, Aarab Y, Pensier J, Prades A, Lakbar I, et al. Feasibility and safety of ultra-low volume ventilation (≤ 3 ml/kg) combined with extra corporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) in acute respiratory failure patients. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):433.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

3. Combes A, Brodie D, Aissaoui N, Bein T, Capellier G, Dalton HJ, et al. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for acute respiratory failure: a review of potential indications, clinical practice and open research questions. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(10):1308–21.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

4. Combes A, Schmidt M, Hodgson CL, Fan E, Ferguson ND, Fraser JF, et al. Extracorporeal life support for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(12):2464–76.

   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

5. Combes A, Fanelli V, Pham T, Ranieri VM, (2019) European society of intensive care medicine trials group and the “Strategy of Ultra-Protective lung ventilation with Extracorporeal CO2 Removal for New-Onset moderate to severe ARDS” (SUPERNOVA) investigators. Feasibility and safety of extracorporeal CO₂ removal to enhance protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: the SUPERNOVA study. Intensive Care Med

6. Laumon T, Courvalin E, Dagod G, Deras P, Girard M, Martinez O, et al. Performance of the decarboxylation index to predict CO₂ removal and minute ventilation reduction under extracorporeal respiratory support. Artif Organs. 2023;47(5):854–63.

   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

7. Sun L, Kaesler A, Fernando P, Thompson A, Toomasian JM, Bartlett RH. CO₂ clearance by membrane lungs. Perfusion. 2018;33(4):249–53.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

8. Wald R, Beaubien-Souligny W, Chanchlani R, Clark EG, Neyra JA, Ostermann M, et al. Delivering optimal renal replacement therapy to critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(10):1368–81.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

9. Saliba F, Bañares R, Larsen FS, Wilmer A, Parés A, Mitzner S, et al. Artificial liver support in patients with liver failure: a modified DELPHI consensus of international experts. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(10):1352–67.

   PubMed Google Scholar

10. Saliba F, Jaber S. Ceremonial purification: which rite is right in liver failure? Author’s reply. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49(3):367–8.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

11. Combes A, Tonetti T, Fanelli V, Pham T, Pesenti A, Mancebo J, et al. Efficacy and safety of lower versus higher CO₂ extraction devices to allow ultraprotective ventilation: secondary analysis of the SUPERNOVA study. Thorax. 2019;74(12):1179–81.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

12. Goligher EC, Combes A, Brodie D, Ferguson ND, Pesenti AM, Ranieri VM, et al. Determinants of the effect of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in the SUPERNOVA trial: implications for trial design. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(9):1219–30.

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable

Not applicable.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine B (DAR B), Saint-Eloi Hospital, University Teaching Hospital of Montpellier, PhyMed Exp, INSERM U1046 Montpellier, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

   Clément Monet, Audrey De Jong & Samir Jaber

Authors

1. Clément MonetView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

2. Audrey De JongView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

3. Samir JaberView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CM, SJ and ADJ designed the manuscript. CM wrote the manuscript, SJ and ADJ reviewed it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samir Jaber.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

Pr. Jaber reports receiving consulting fees from Drager, Medtronic, Mindray, Fresenius, Baxter, and Fisher & Paykel. Pr. De Jong reports receiving remuneration for presentations from Medtronic, Drager and Fisher & Paykel. Dr Monet reports receiving remuneration for presentations from Medtronic.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Monet, C., De Jong, A. & Jaber, S. “High blood flow” versus “low blood flow” ECCO₂R: how to classify—author’s reply. Crit Care 29, 156 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05386-8

Download citation

• Received: 20 March 2025

• Accepted: 24 March 2025

• Published: 18 April 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05386-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative