4.6 Article

Inhaled iloprost in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: Effects before and after pulmonary thromboendarterectomy

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 711-718

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(03)00728-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In primary pulmonary hypertension, aerosolized prostanoids selectively reduce pulmonary vascular resistance and improve right ventricular function. In this study, hemodynamic effects of inhaled iloprost, a stable prostacyclin analogue, were evaluated in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) before and early after pulmonary thromboendarterctomy (PTE). Methods. Ten patients (mean age 49 years old [32 to 70 years old], New York Heart Association functional class III and IV) received a dose of 33 mug aerosolized iloprost immediately before surgery (T1), after intensive care unit admission (T2), and 12-hours postoperatively (T3). Effects on pulmonary and systemic hemodynamics and gas exchange were recorded and compared with preinhalation baseline values. Results. Preoperatively, inhaled iloprost did not significantly change mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), cardiac index (CI), or pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). Postoperatively, inhaled iloprost induced a significant reduction of mPAP and PVR and a significant increase of CI at T2 and T3. Preinhalation versus postinhalation PVR was as follows: at T1, 847 versus 729 dynes . s . cm(-5), p = 0.45; at T2, 502 versus 316 dynes.s . cm(-5), p = 0.008; and at T3, 299 versus 227 dynes . s . cm(-5), p = 0.004. Conclusions. In patients with CTEPH, inhalation of iloprost elicits no significant pulmonary vasodilation before surgery, and may have detrimental effects on systemic hemodynamics. Postoperatively, it significantly reduces mPAP and PVR, and enhances CI. Following PTE, inhalation of iloprost is useful to improve early postoperative hemodynamics. (C) 2003 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

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

4.6
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