PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 15, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Sweep Gas Nitric Oxide During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Neonates and Children (NECTAR Trial): A Single-Center, Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

View Full Paper
AMAdrian MattkeKJKerry JohnsonKGKristen Gibbons

Key Points

  • To evaluate the safety and feasibility of using nitric oxide in ECMO sweep gas for critically ill children.
  • Conducted a single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial.
  • Enrolled patients from birth to 16 years requiring ECMO support at a PICU.
  • Patients were randomized to receive standard sweep gas or nitric oxide enhancement.
  • 53 of 60 eligible patients were randomized, with similar outcomes in both groups.
  • No major adverse events were reported related to the intervention.
  • No significant differences were found in survival free of ECMO or PICU between groups.

Abstract

Objectives: To test the feasibility and safety of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivering nitric oxide into the sweep gas of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuits (sNO) in critically ill children. Second, we explored whether use of sNO may influence clinical outcomes. Design: Prospective pilot single-center open-label RCT (trial registration number ACTRN12619001518156). Setting: Single-center, tertiary PICU with enrollment between July 2020 and July 2023. Patients: Patients from birth to 16 years requiring venoarterial or venovenous ECMO support were enrolled. Interventions: Randomization to sweep flow with an oxygen/nitrogen mix vs. a mix of oxygen, nitrogen and sNO (20 parts per milliion). Randomization was stratified by type of ECMO support (venoarterial vs. venovenous). Measurements and Main Results: Of 60 eligible patients 53 underwent randomization. The median (interquartile range IQR) was 1 month (0.1–33.5 mo) and 6.2 months (0.5–120.2 mo) for the intervention and control arms, respectively. Venoarterial and venovenous support were used in 35 of 53 (65%) and 18 of 53 (35%) patients, respectively. In all, 17 of 53 (32%) received pulmonary, 23 of 53 (43%) cardiac and 13 of 53 (25%) extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation support. Median (IQR) survival free of ECMO and survival free of PICU censored at 30 and 90 days were similar: 18.2 days (0–25.2 d) and 69.1 days (0–85.2 d) vs. 20.8 days (0–26.3 d) and 77.7 days (0–85.9 d) with an effect estimate of –3.2 days (–16.6 to 10.1 d) and –8.8 days (–54.2 to 36.6 d) between the intervention and standard care arm. Blood product use, circuit duration to replacement, free plasma hemoglobin, degree of oxygenator thrombus, and incidence of methemoglobinemia were similar between the two groups. No major adverse events occurred related to the treatment allocation or intervention. Conclusions: This single-center pilot RCT of sNO vs. standard sweep flow in the ECMO circuit demonstrated that such a trial is safe and feasible. However, given no effect of sNO on clinical outcomes was detected further exploration of dose and route of administration of NO should be undertaken before larger, definitive trials are conducted.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mattke et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b606af83145bc643d1cd62https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-292904
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper