4.0 Article

Effectiveness and safety of Tolvaptan in infants with congenital heart disease

期刊

PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ped.15580

关键词

child; congenital heart disease; diuretics; heart failure; tolvaptan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of tolvaptan in infants with congestive heart failure caused by congenital heart disease. The results suggest that tolvaptan can be safely and effectively used at a low dosage, and no significant adverse events were observed.
Background: Tolvaptan (TLV) is a selective vasopressin receptor 2 antagonist administered for congestive heart failure (CHF) after inadequate response to other diuretics. The effectiveness and safety of TLV have been evaluated well in adult patients. However, reports on its use in pediatric patients, especially infants, are scarce.Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 41 children younger than 1 year of age who received TLV for CHF for congenital heart disease (CHD) between January 2010 and August 2021. We monitored the occurrence of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and hypernatremia, as well as laboratory data trends.Results: Of the 41 infants included, 51.2% were male. The median age when TLV was initiated was 2 months, interquartile range (IQR) 1-4 months, and all infants had been administered other diuretics previously. The median dose of TLV was 0.1 mg/kg/day (IQR, 0.1-0.1). Urine output increased significantly after 48 h of treatment: baseline, 315 mL/day (IQR, 243-394); 48 h, 381 mL/day (IQR, 262-518) , p = 0.0004; 72 h, 385 mL/day (IQR, 301-569), p = 0.0013; 96 h, 425 mL/day (IQR, 272-524), p = 0.0006; and 144 h, 396 mL/day (IQR, 305-477), p = 0.0036. No adverse events were observed.Conclusions: Tolvaptan can be used safely and efficiently in infants with CHD. From the perspective of adverse effects, initiating administration at a lower dosage is preferable because this was found to be sufficiently effective.

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

4.0
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