PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 30, 2001Circulation183 citationsOpen Access

Inhaled Nitric Oxide Versus Aerosolized Iloprost in Secondary Pulmonary Hypertension in Children With Congenital Heart Disease

View Full Paper
PRPeter C. RimensbergerISIsabelle Spahr‐SchopferMBMichel Berner

Structured PICO

Does aerosolized iloprost reduce pulmonary vascular resistance as effectively as inhaled nitric oxide in children with congenital heart disease and pulmonary hypertension?

P
Population
15 children with congenital heart disease and pulmonary hypertension (PHT) who had elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (preoperative, n=10; immediately postoperative, n=5).
I
Intervention
Aerosolized iloprost at 25 ng/kg/min for 10 minutes, followed by a combination of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and aerosolized iloprost for 10 minutes.
C
Comparator
Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) 20 ppm for 10 minutes (administered sequentially before iloprost).
O
Outcome
Pulmonary vascular resistance and systemic vascular resistance ratio.surrogate

Aerosolized iloprost is as effective as inhaled nitric oxide in selectively lowering pulmonary vascular resistance in children with congenital heart disease and pulmonary hypertension, offering a potential alternative for early testing and postoperative treatment.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) has been used to assess the vasodilator capacity of the pulmonary vascular bed in children with congenital heart disease and elevated pulmonary vascular resistance. Inhaled iloprost is a pulmonary vasodilator for the long-term treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PHT). Because these 2 vasodilators act through different pathways (release of cGMP or cAMP, respectively), we compared the pulmonary vasodilator capacity of each. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 15 children with congenital heart disease and PHT who had elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (preoperative, n=10; immediately postoperative, n=5) were first given 20 ppm of iNO for 10 minutes; then, after baseline values were reached again, they were given aerosolized iloprost at 25 ng. kg(-1). min(-1) for another 10 minutes. Finally, iNO and iloprost were given simultaneously for 10 minutes. With iNO, the pulmonary vascular resistance and systemic vascular resistance ratio decreased from 0.48+/-0.38 to 0.27+/-0.16 (P:<0.001). Similarly, iloprost decreased the ratio from 0.49+/-0.38 to 0.26+/-0.11 (P:<0.05). The combination had no additional effect on the resistance ratio. Plasma cGMP increased from 17.6+/-11.9 to 34.7+/-21.4 nmol/L during iNO (P:<0.01), and plasma cAMP increased from 55.7+/-22.9 to 65.1+/-21.2 nmol/L during iloprost inhalation (P:<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In children with PHT and congenital heart disease, both iNO and aerosolized iloprost are equally effective in selectively lowering pulmonary vascular resistance through an increase in cGMP or cAMP, respectively. However, the combination of both vasodilators failed to prove more potent than either substance alone. Aerosolized iloprost might be an alternative to iNO for early testing of vascular reactivity and for the postoperative treatment of acute PHT.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rimensberger et al. (2001) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1d17dc0ee91866522f130ehttps://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.103.4.544
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper