Why the study?
Does intravenous iloprost improve long-term transplantation-free survival in patients with advanced pulmonary arterial hypertension?
Does intravenous iloprost improve long-term transplantation-free survival in patients with advanced pulmonary arterial hypertension?
Despite initial clinical and haemodynamic improvements, long-term transplantation-free survival remains poor in patients with advanced PAH treated with intravenous iloprost.
Poor long-term transplantation-free survival persists with i.v. iloprost in advanced PAH; leaves open survival benefit in randomized trials.
There is limited data on the long-term efficacy of intravenous iloprost in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This retrospective multicentre analysis evaluated the clinical course of patients with PAH treated with i.v. iloprost, in most cases after having received inhaled iloprost as first-line therapy. Between 1997 and 2001, 79 PAH patients were treated with i.v. iloprost and followed until 2007. These patients had advanced and progressive disease as indicated by a mean pulmonary vascular resistance of 1,533 dyn x s x cm(-5) at the time of diagnosis and of 1,858 dyn x s x cm(-5) at the onset of i.v. iloprost therapy. Introduction of i.v. iloprost therapy resulted in initial haemodynamic and clinical improvement. At the end of the observation period, however, 50 (61%) patients had died and 21 (26%) required lung transplantation. Transplantation-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 yrs were 86%, 59% and 45%, respectively, after the diagnosis of PAH, and 54%, 31% and 15%, respectively, after the introduction of i.v. iloprost therapy. Predictors of an adverse outcome at baseline were a low 6-min walk distance and a low mixed venous oxygen saturation. In conclusion, despite initial haemodynamic and clinical improvement, overall long-term survival with i.v. iloprost therapy was limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoeper et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: