Why the study?
Inhaled nitric oxide carries safety concerns regarding rebound pulmonary hypertension associated with its withdrawal.
Is short-term pulsed inhaled nitric oxide safe and effective, and what is the risk of withdrawal rebound in patients with severe PAH and nCTEPH?
Is short-term pulsed inhaled nitric oxide safe and effective, and what is the risk of withdrawal rebound in patients with severe PAH and nCTEPH?
Short-term pulsed inhaled nitric oxide improves hemodynamics in severe chronic PH, but its sudden withdrawal carries a serious risk of rebound pulmonary hypertension and hemodynamic collapse.
Sudden iNO withdrawal was associated with hemodynamic compromise in severe PH; leaves open optimal weaning protocols for prospective trials.
Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a potent and selective pulmonary vasodilator with a safety concern due to rebound pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with its withdrawal. We report short‐term pulsed iNO in patients with severe pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and nonoperable chronic thromboembolic PH (nCTEPH). This is a retrospective analysis of 33 patients: 22 with PAH and 11 with nCTEPH. We assessed hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and other noninvasive variables to evaluate safety and efficacy of iNO. We performed an iNO withdrawal test during right heart catheterization and after 3 days of iNO treatment. iNO significantly improved all variables examined in 22 patients with PAH and 11 with nCTEPH. Two patterns of response were observed after sudden iNO withdrawal. Twenty‐nine patients (88%) showed minimal hemodynamic, oxygenation and clinical changes. Four patients (12%) had a reduction in cardiac index ≥20% and PaO 2 ≥ 5%, three patients did not show clinical deterioration, and one patient developed hemodynamic collapse that needed iNO administration. This retrospective study suggests that short‐term iNO improves hemodynamics and clinical conditions in some patients with PAH an nCTPEH. However, pulsed iNO withdrawal PH rebound could be a serious concern in these patients. Given the lack of evidence, we do not recommend the use of pulsed iNO in the treatment of patients with chronic PH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pérez-Peñate et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: