4.2 Article

Management of pulmonary hypertension in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: nitric oxide with prostaglandin-E1 versus nitric oxide alone

期刊

PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1101-1104

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-008-2225-6

关键词

congenital diaphragmatic hernia; pulmonary hypertension; prostaglandin-E1; nitric oxide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Prostaglandin-E1 (PGE(1)) is used at most centers for treating pulmonary hypertension (PH) in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) because it has been regarded as effective. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of PGE1 for treating PH in CDH. Methods We reviewed 49 CDH cases with echocardiography-proven PH. PH was treated with PGE(1) and nitric oxide (NO) and high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) from 1997 to 2001 (PG + NO; n = 19) and with NO and HFOV from 2002 to 2007 (NO; n = 30). Results Subject demographics, severity of PH, and presence of other anomalies were not significantly different between the two groups. In the PG + NO group, 12/19 (63.2%) survived (PG + NO-s) and 7/19 (36.8%) died (PG + NO-d). In the NO group, 21/30 (70.0%) survived (NO-s) and 9/30 (30.0%) died (NO-d). Survival rates were not significantly different. In the NO-s group, spontaneous closure of the ductus arteriosus (DA) was significantly earlier compared with the PG + NO-s group (P < 0.01; 4.0 +/- 0.9 vs. 9.5 +/- 2.2 days after birth). DA diameters were significantly larger in groups that died compared with groups that survived (P < 0.01), and PH persisted in groups that died. In the NO-s group, surgery was possible significantly earlier compared with the PG + NO-s group (P < 0.01; 3.75 +/- 0.67 vs. 6.12 +/- 0.78 days after birth). No NO-s case developed a PH crisis even though PGE(1) was not used. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the NO-s group compared with the PG + NO-s group (P < 0.05; 39.9 +/- 19 vs. 53.2 +/- 23 days). Conclusion Nitric oxide alone would appear to simplify the management of CDH with PH and provide better outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据