4.6 Article

Cautious epoprostenol therapy is a safe bridge to lung transplantation in pulmonary veno-occlusive disease

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 1348-1356

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00017809

Keywords

Epoprostenol; lung transplantation; prostacyclin; pulmonary arterial hypertension; pulmonary oedema; pulmonary veno-occlusive disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD) carries a poor prognosis and lung transplantation is the only curative treatment. In PVOD, epoprostenol therapy is controversial, as this condition may be refractory to specific therapy with an increased risk of pulmonary oedema. We retrospectively reviewed clinical, functional and haemodynamic data of 12 patients with PVOD (10 with histological confirmation) treated with continuous intravenous epoprostenol and priority listed for lung transplantation after January 1, 2003. All PVOD patients had severe clinical, functional and haemodynamic impairment at presentation. Epoprostenol was used at low dose ranges with slow dose increases and high dose diuretics. Only one patient developed mild reversible pulmonary oedema. After 3-4 months, improvements were seen in the New York Heart Association functional class (class IV to III in seven patients), cardiac index (1.99 +/- 0.68 to 2.94 +/- 0.89 L.min(-1).m(-2)) and indexed pulmonary vascular resistance (28.4 +/- 8.4 to 17 +/- 5.2 Wood units.m(-2); all p<0.01). A nonsignificant improvement in the 6-min walk distance was also observed (+41 m, p=0.11). Two patients died, one patient was alive on the transplantation waiting list on December 1, 2008 and nine patients were transplanted. Cautious use of continuous intravenous epoprostenol improved clinical and haemodynamic parameters in PVOD patients at 3-4 months without commonly causing pulmonary oedema, and may be a useful bridge to urgent lung transplantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available