In vitro characterization of PrismaLung+: a novel ECCO₂R device

Invasive mechanical ventilation is lifesaving in the setting of severe acute respiratory failure but can cause ventilation-induced lung injury. Advances in extracorporeal CO₂ removal (ECCO₂R) technologies may facilitate more protective lung ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome, and enable earlier weaning and/or avoid invasive mechanical ventilation entirely in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. We evaluated the in vitro CO₂ removal capacity of the novel PrismaLung+ ECCO₂R device compared with two existing gas exchangers.

The in vitro CO₂ removal capacity of the PrismaLung+ (surface area 0.8 m², Baxter) was compared with the PrismaLung (surface area 0.35 m², Baxter) and A.L.ONE (surface area 1.35 m², Eurosets) devices, using a closed-loop bovine blood-perfused extracorporeal circuit. The efficacy of each device was measured at varying pCO₂ inlet (p_inCO₂) levels (45, 60, and 80 mmHg) and blood flow rates (Q_B) of 200-450 mL/min; the PrismaLung+ and A.L.ONE devices were also tested at a Q_B of 600 mL/min. The amount of CO₂ removed by each device was assessed by measurement of the CO₂ infused to maintain circuit equilibrium (CO₂ infusion method) and compared with measured CO₂ concentrations in the inlet and outlet of the CO₂ removal device (blood gas analysis method).

The PrismaLung+ device performed similarly to the A.L.ONE device, with both devices demonstrating CO₂ removal rates ~ 50% greater than the PrismaLung device. CO₂ removal rates were 73 ± 4.0, 44 ± 2.5, and 72 ± 1.9 mL/min, for PrismaLung+, PrismaLung, and A.L.ONE, respectively, at Q_B 300 mL/min and p_inCO₂ 45 mmHg. A Bland-Altman plot demonstrated that the CO₂ infusion method was comparable to the blood gas analysis method for calculating CO₂ removal. The resistance to blood flow across the test device, as measured by pressure drop, varied as a function of blood flow rate, and was greatest for PrismaLung and lowest for the A.L.ONE device.

The newly developed PrismaLung+ performed more effectively than PrismaLung, with performance of CO₂ removal comparable to A.L.ONE at the flow rates tested, despite the smaller membrane surface area of PrismaLung+ versus A.L.ONE. Clinical testing of PrismaLung+ is warranted to further characterize its performance.