FC 052ACID-BASE BALANCE DURING IN-SERIES EXTRACORPOREAL CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL AND CONTINUOUS VENOVENOUS HEMOFILTRATION: PREDICTIONS FROM A MATHEMATICAL MODEL

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Critically ill acute kidney injury (AKI) patients may require treatment by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) devices to allow protective or ultraprotective mechanical ventilation and avoid hypercapnic acidosis. Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) and ECCO2R devices can be arranged in series to form a single extracorporeal circuit; such a circuit has been proposed to be optimal, based carbon dioxide removal efficacy, if the ECCO2R device is placed proximal to the CVVH device (Allardet-Servent et al, Crit Care Med 43:2570-2581, 2015). Method We developed a mathematical model of whole-body, acid-base balance during extracorporeal therapy using in-series ECCO2R and CVVH devices for treatment of mechanically ventilated AKI patients. Equilibrium acid-base chemistry in blood was assumed as reported previously (Rees and Andreassen, Crit Rev Biomed Eng 33:209-264, 2005). Published clinical data from Allardet-Servent et al of mechanically ventilated (6 mL/kg predicted body weight or PBW) AKI patients treated by CVVH without ECCO2R were used to adjust model parameters to fit plasma levels of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and arterial plasma bicarbonate concentration ([HCO3]). The effects of applying ECCO2R at an unchanged tidal volume and a reduced tidal volume (4 mL/kg PBW) on PaCO2 and [HCO3] were then simulated assuming carbon dioxide removal rates from the ECCO2R device measured in the clinical study (91 mL of CO2/min when ECCO2R was proximal and 72 mL of CO2/min when CVVH was proximal). Results Agreement of model predictions with the clinical data was good, and model predictions were relatively independent of the in-series position of the devices (see Table). Total carbon dioxide removal from the CVVH device via ultrafiltration predicted by the model was lower after applying ECCO2R at both the unchanged tidal volume (25 mL of CO2/min when ECCO2R was proximal and 39 mL of CO2/min when CVVH was proximal) and the reduced tidal volume (30 mL of CO2/min when ECCO2R was proximal and 44 mL of CO2/min when CVVH was proximal). The reduced removal of total carbon dioxide via ultrafiltration when ECCO2R was proximal resulted from the lower total carbon dioxide concentration in blood entering the CVVH device. Thus, independent of the in-series position of the devices, the magnitude of this difference in total carbon dioxide removal by the CVVH device (14 mL of CO2/min) approximately cancels out the relative greater efficacy of the ECCO2R device (19 mL of CO2/min). Conclusion The described mathematical model has quantitative accuracy. It suggests that overall acid-base balance when using ECCO2R and CVVH devices in a single, combined extracorporeal circuit will be similar, independent of their in-series position.