Background and aim: To compare outcomes of patients treated with inhaled epoprostenol and low tidal volume ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass with those who did not receive this medication in the operating room at all, and those who received it as a rescue therapy at the end of the case.
Methods: Retrospective chart review between 2014 and 2017, follow-up included the entire hospital stay.
Results: Seventy-one patients were included, and mean age was 54 years. 78.9% of the patients were male. Procedures included 96% (n = 68) aortic valve replacement, 28% (n = 20) reconstruction of the intravalvular fibrosa, and 13% (n = 9) repair of an endocarditis-related intracardiac fistula. Patients who received epoprostenol (iEpo) (treatment and rescue groups), when compared with the control group had more intra-aortic balloon pump placement (23% vs 2.5%, P = .018), open chest after surgery (32% vs 7.5%, P = .012), and duration of mechanical ventilation (8.3 ± 2.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.4 days, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of extracorporeal circulatory support (6.5% vs 2.5%, P = .577) and hospital death (13% vs 10%, P = .72). In a subanalysis, hospital death and duration of mechanical ventilation were higher in the recue group when compared with the treatment group (P = .004 and .056, respectively).
Conclusions: Prophylactic application of iEpo with low tidal volume ventilation for an anticipated complex endocarditis operation may contribute to favorable outcome when compared with postoperative epoprostenol rescue.
Keywords: acute respiratory distress syndrome; endocarditis; epoprostenol; high risk cardiac surgery; respiratory failure.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.