Inhaled Iloprost Versus Epoprostenol in Heart Transplant Recipients

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute right ventricular dysfunction is a challenging problem in the immediate postoperative period following orthotopic heart transplantation. There are no prior reports of the use of inhaled iloprost in the setting of acute right ventricular dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension. Our hypothesis was that the use of inhaled iloprost in heart transplant recipients would be associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to patients being treated with continuous inhaled epoprostenol. Additionally, we hypothesized that the change in inhaled vasodilatory therapy would not be associated with a significant change in postoperative bleeding or use of vasoactive medications. METHODS: We reviewed charts of 80 consecutive patients undergoing heart transplantation at our institution between July 1, 2003, and August 8, 2008. From July 1, 2003 to March 13, 2006, epoprostenol was our primary vasodilator; subsequently epoprostenol was replaced with iloprost. We included 39 subjects who received epoprostenol and 40 subjects who received iloprost. Data were collected on the use of inhaled vasodilators, comparing periods before and after our institutional protocol change. Demographic data, hemodynamic values, drain output, and any requirement for vasoactive medication infusions were collected. Our primary end point was the natural logarithm of duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were hemodynamic values and length of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Subjects treated with iloprost were mechanically ventilated for 0.36 ± 0.20 (adjusted mean ± SE) log days, which was shorter (P = .033) than the 1.00 ± 0.22 logdays for subjects treated with epoprostenol. This resulted in an estimated median number of mechanically ventilated days for subjects treated with epoprostenol that was approximately 1.9 times longer than the estimated median number of ventilated days for subjects treated with iloprost (95% CI 1.05-3.4, P = .033). There were no differences in safety end points or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Use of inhaled iloprost was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to inhaled epoprostenol, without safety concerns.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)743-751
Number of pages9
JournalRespiratory care
Volume64
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2019

Fingerprint

Iloprost
Epoprostenol
Length of Stay
Artificial Respiration
Right Ventricular Dysfunction
Heart Transplantation
Vasodilator Agents
Hemodynamics
Safety
Transplant Recipients
Pulmonary Hypertension
Postoperative Period
Demography
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • heart transplantation
  • hypertension
  • iloprost
  • prostaglandins
  • pulmonary
  • right-sided heart failure
  • synthetic
  • vasodilator agents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Inhaled Iloprost Versus Epoprostenol in Heart Transplant Recipients. / Enomoto, T. Miko; Treggiari, Miriam; Yanez, Norbert; Merkel, Matthias.

In: Respiratory care, Vol. 64, No. 7, 01.07.2019, p. 743-751.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

@article{ab2edd5dda174350affb44d4eae64321,
title = "Inhaled Iloprost Versus Epoprostenol in Heart Transplant Recipients",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Acute right ventricular dysfunction is a challenging problem in the immediate postoperative period following orthotopic heart transplantation. There are no prior reports of the use of inhaled iloprost in the setting of acute right ventricular dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension. Our hypothesis was that the use of inhaled iloprost in heart transplant recipients would be associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to patients being treated with continuous inhaled epoprostenol. Additionally, we hypothesized that the change in inhaled vasodilatory therapy would not be associated with a significant change in postoperative bleeding or use of vasoactive medications. METHODS: We reviewed charts of 80 consecutive patients undergoing heart transplantation at our institution between July 1, 2003, and August 8, 2008. From July 1, 2003 to March 13, 2006, epoprostenol was our primary vasodilator; subsequently epoprostenol was replaced with iloprost. We included 39 subjects who received epoprostenol and 40 subjects who received iloprost. Data were collected on the use of inhaled vasodilators, comparing periods before and after our institutional protocol change. Demographic data, hemodynamic values, drain output, and any requirement for vasoactive medication infusions were collected. Our primary end point was the natural logarithm of duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were hemodynamic values and length of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Subjects treated with iloprost were mechanically ventilated for 0.36 ± 0.20 (adjusted mean ± SE) log days, which was shorter (P = .033) than the 1.00 ± 0.22 logdays for subjects treated with epoprostenol. This resulted in an estimated median number of mechanically ventilated days for subjects treated with epoprostenol that was approximately 1.9 times longer than the estimated median number of ventilated days for subjects treated with iloprost (95{\%} CI 1.05-3.4, P = .033). There were no differences in safety end points or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Use of inhaled iloprost was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to inhaled epoprostenol, without safety concerns.",
keywords = "heart transplantation, hypertension, iloprost, prostaglandins, pulmonary, right-sided heart failure, synthetic, vasodilator agents",
author = "Enomoto, {T. Miko} and Miriam Treggiari and Norbert Yanez and Matthias Merkel",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4187/respcare.06426",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "743--751",
journal = "Respiratory Care",
issn = "0020-1324",
publisher = "Daedalus Enterprises Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inhaled Iloprost Versus Epoprostenol in Heart Transplant Recipients

AU - Enomoto, T. Miko

AU - Treggiari, Miriam

AU - Yanez, Norbert

AU - Merkel, Matthias

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Acute right ventricular dysfunction is a challenging problem in the immediate postoperative period following orthotopic heart transplantation. There are no prior reports of the use of inhaled iloprost in the setting of acute right ventricular dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension. Our hypothesis was that the use of inhaled iloprost in heart transplant recipients would be associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to patients being treated with continuous inhaled epoprostenol. Additionally, we hypothesized that the change in inhaled vasodilatory therapy would not be associated with a significant change in postoperative bleeding or use of vasoactive medications. METHODS: We reviewed charts of 80 consecutive patients undergoing heart transplantation at our institution between July 1, 2003, and August 8, 2008. From July 1, 2003 to March 13, 2006, epoprostenol was our primary vasodilator; subsequently epoprostenol was replaced with iloprost. We included 39 subjects who received epoprostenol and 40 subjects who received iloprost. Data were collected on the use of inhaled vasodilators, comparing periods before and after our institutional protocol change. Demographic data, hemodynamic values, drain output, and any requirement for vasoactive medication infusions were collected. Our primary end point was the natural logarithm of duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were hemodynamic values and length of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Subjects treated with iloprost were mechanically ventilated for 0.36 ± 0.20 (adjusted mean ± SE) log days, which was shorter (P = .033) than the 1.00 ± 0.22 logdays for subjects treated with epoprostenol. This resulted in an estimated median number of mechanically ventilated days for subjects treated with epoprostenol that was approximately 1.9 times longer than the estimated median number of ventilated days for subjects treated with iloprost (95% CI 1.05-3.4, P = .033). There were no differences in safety end points or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Use of inhaled iloprost was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to inhaled epoprostenol, without safety concerns.

AB - BACKGROUND: Acute right ventricular dysfunction is a challenging problem in the immediate postoperative period following orthotopic heart transplantation. There are no prior reports of the use of inhaled iloprost in the setting of acute right ventricular dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension. Our hypothesis was that the use of inhaled iloprost in heart transplant recipients would be associated with a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation compared to patients being treated with continuous inhaled epoprostenol. Additionally, we hypothesized that the change in inhaled vasodilatory therapy would not be associated with a significant change in postoperative bleeding or use of vasoactive medications. METHODS: We reviewed charts of 80 consecutive patients undergoing heart transplantation at our institution between July 1, 2003, and August 8, 2008. From July 1, 2003 to March 13, 2006, epoprostenol was our primary vasodilator; subsequently epoprostenol was replaced with iloprost. We included 39 subjects who received epoprostenol and 40 subjects who received iloprost. Data were collected on the use of inhaled vasodilators, comparing periods before and after our institutional protocol change. Demographic data, hemodynamic values, drain output, and any requirement for vasoactive medication infusions were collected. Our primary end point was the natural logarithm of duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were hemodynamic values and length of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Subjects treated with iloprost were mechanically ventilated for 0.36 ± 0.20 (adjusted mean ± SE) log days, which was shorter (P = .033) than the 1.00 ± 0.22 logdays for subjects treated with epoprostenol. This resulted in an estimated median number of mechanically ventilated days for subjects treated with epoprostenol that was approximately 1.9 times longer than the estimated median number of ventilated days for subjects treated with iloprost (95% CI 1.05-3.4, P = .033). There were no differences in safety end points or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Use of inhaled iloprost was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to inhaled epoprostenol, without safety concerns.

KW - heart transplantation

KW - hypertension

KW - iloprost

KW - prostaglandins

KW - pulmonary

KW - right-sided heart failure

KW - synthetic

KW - vasodilator agents

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068887297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068887297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4187/respcare.06426

DO - 10.4187/respcare.06426

M3 - Editorial

VL - 64

SP - 743

EP - 751

JO - Respiratory Care

JF - Respiratory Care

SN - 0020-1324

IS - 7

ER -