Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can support gas exchange in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During ECLS, venous blood is drained from a central vein via a cannula, pumped through a semipermeable membrane that permits diffusion of oxygen and carbon dioxide, and returned via a cannula to a central vein. Two related forms of ECLS are used. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), which uses high blood flow rates to both oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide, may be considered in patients with severe ARDS whose oxygenation or ventilation cannot be maintained adequately with best practice conventional mechanical ventilation and adjunctive therapies, including prone positioning. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO 2 R) uses lower blood flow rates through smaller cannulae and provides substantial CO 2 elimination (~ 20–70% of total CO 2 production), albeit with marginal improvement in oxygenation. The rationale for using ECCO 2 R in ARDS is to facilitate lung-protective ventilation by allowing a reduction of tidal volume, respiratory rate, plateau pressure, driving pressure and mechanical power delivered by the mechanical ventilator. This narrative review summarizes physiological concepts related to ECLS, as well as the rationale and evidence supporting ECMO and ECCO 2 R for the treatment of ARDS. It also reviews complications, limitations, and the ethical dilemmas that can arise in treating patients with ECLS. Finally, it discusses future key research questions and challenges for this technology.

Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

The combination of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and recruitment maneuvers resulted in rapid and sustained improvement in oxygenation, likely through lung recruitment. This explicit high-frequency oscillatory ventilation protocol appears well tolerated, feasible, and physiologically sound.