Key result
Intravenous iloprost linked to ~12-fold higher bloodstream infection risk versus epoprostenol.
Why the study?
Bloodstream infection is a severe complication of continuous intravenous prostacyclin analog infusion, but it remains poorly recognized with few studies addressing it under iloprost administration.
Does intravenous iloprost compared to epoprostenol increase the risk of bloodstream infection in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Cohort (n=36)
Yes
Does intravenous iloprost compared to epoprostenol increase the risk of bloodstream infection in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Intravenous iloprost is associated with a significantly higher risk of bloodstream infections and BSI-related mortality compared to epoprostenol in patients with pulmonary hypertension.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May increase BSI risk with iloprost versus epoprostenol in pulmonary hypertension; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Intravenous synthetic prostacyclin analogs (iPCAs), such as epoprostenol, treprostinil and iloprost have been widely used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Despite having good outcomes, continuous infusion of iPCAs has been associated with some adverse effects. Bloodstream infection (BSI) is one of the most severe complications, although poorly recognized, especially under iloprost administration, which few studies have addressed. This study aimed to compare the BSI incidence rates between intravenous iloprost and epoprostenol administration. Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) functional class III or IV receiving intravenous iloprost or epoprostenol through Hickman catheter, between 2004 and 2019, were retrospectively selected from two PH treatment centers. From a total of 36 patients (13 for iloprost and 23 for epoprostenol), 75% (n = 27) fulfilled the PAH criteria, mainly belonging to the idiopathic group. Overall BSI rate was 1.5/1000 days of treatment (3.38 and 0.09/1000 days for iloprost and epoprostenol, respectively). Patients receiving iloprost were at a higher risk of developing BSI than those receiving epoprostenol (HR: 12.5; 95% CI: 1.569–99.092). A higher mortality rate from BSI was also identified in the iloprost group (p = 0.04). Twenty-seven patients developed BSI, with 92% of them requiring hospitalization. A total of 29 agents were found, 10 Gram-positive (mainly Staphylococcus aureus; n = 5) and 19 Gram-negative (mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa; n = 6) bacteria. Iloprost administration was linked to a significantly higher incidence of BSI, worse prognosis, and more BSI-related deaths than epoprostenol. BSI due to Gram-negative, commensal, low-virulence bacteria was also higher in the iloprost group. In short, physicians should be aware when prescribing iPCA to guarantee their patients’ safety and best medical care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Câmara et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary hypertension (n=36). Intravenous iloprost vs. Intravenous epoprostenol was evaluated on Bloodstream infection (BSI) incidence rate (HR 12.5, 95% CI 1.569-99.092). Intravenous iloprost administration was associated with a higher risk of bloodstream infection compared to epoprostenol.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: