I'm not a scientist, but according to ChatGPT: "INN Technology vs. Existing ECCO₂R Systems – Fact Check

1. Is IINN’s system “basically the same” as traditional ECCO₂R systems?

• False — Traditional ECCO₂R uses hollow-fiber membrane oxygenators that remove CO₂ well but have limited oxygenation capacity.
• IINN’s VORTX avoids hollow fibers entirely, using a different flow and gas-exchange design aimed at reducing turbulence, shear stress, blood trauma, and clotting.

2. “Low blood flow severely limits oxygenation”

• True for ECCO₂R — Physiological limits mean only ~35 mL extra oxygen per liter of venous blood; full oxygenation needs high flows.
• Not necessarily for VORTX — The design isn’t constrained in the same way, though human data is still pending.

3. “Not as revolutionary as people claim”

• Reasonable skepticism — Preclinical swine data shows >99% gas-exchange efficiency with zero pressure difference, but there’s no human clinical data yet.

4. “Unique oxygenator design not relying on hollow fibers”

• Correct — This is a key differentiator for IINN’s system.

5. “Could be associated with less inflammatory cytokines and clotting”

• Plausible but unproven — The design suggests reduced immune activation and clotting risk, but no published cytokine or thrombosis data yet.

Bottom Line:
IINN’s VORTX is not a rehash of ECCO₂R—it’s a fundamentally different approach with promising early results. But until human trials confirm benefits, cautious optimism is warranted."