Oral Sildenafil Is an Effective and Specific Pulmonary Vasodilator in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with severe pulmonary hypertension (PHT) is poor. To determine prognosis and guide therapy, an acute hemodynamic trial of selective pulmonary vasodilators, usually inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), was performed. We hypothesized that oral sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, is a safe and effective alternative to iNO. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 13 consecutive patients (mean+/-SEM, 44+/-2 years of age; 9 women) referred for consideration of heart-lung transplantation or as a guide to medical therapy. All but one were functional class III or IV. Patients had primary PHT (n=9), pulmonary arterial hypertension (n=2), or secondary PHT (n=2). Hemodynamics and serum cyclic guanosine-monophosphate levels (cGMP) were measured at baseline and at peak effects of iNO (80 ppm), sildenafil (75 mg), and their combination. The decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance was similar with iNO (-19+/-5%) and sildenafil (-27+/-3%), whereas sildenafil+iNO was more effective than iNO alone (-32+/-5%, P<0.003). Sildenafil and sildenafil+iNO increased cardiac index (17+/-5% and 17+/-4%, respectively), whereas iNO did not (-0.2+/-2.0%, P<0.003). iNO increased, whereas sildenafil tended to decrease, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (+15+/-6 versus -9+/-7%, P<0.0007). Systemic arterial pressure was similar among groups and did not decrease with treatment. cGMP levels increased similarly with iNO and sildenafil, and their combination synergistically elevated cGMP (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A single oral dose of sildenafil is as effective and selective a pulmonary vasodilator as iNO. Sildenafil may be superior to iNO in that it increases cardiac output and does not increase wedge pressure. Future studies are indicated to establish whether sildenafil could be effective over a longer duration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".