Aerosolized Vasodilators for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension in Cardiac Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In cardiac surgery, pulmonary hypertension is an important prognostic factor for which several treatments have been suggested over time. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of inhaled aerosolized vasodilators to intravenously administered agents and to placebo in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension during cardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to October 2015. The incidence of mortality was assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital and in the intensive care unit, and evaluation of the hemodynamic profile. METHODS: Of the 2897 citations identified, 10 studies were included comprising a total of 434 patients. RESULTS: Inhaled aerosolized agents were associated with a significant decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (-41.36 dyne·s/cm, P= .03) and a significant increase in mean arterial pressure (8.24 mm Hg, P= .02) and right ventricular ejection fraction (7.29%, P< .0001) when compared to intravenously administered agents. No significant hemodynamically meaningful differences were observed between inhaled agents and placebo; however, an increase in length of stay in the intensive care unit was shown with the use of inhaled aerosolized agents (0.66 days, P= .01). No other differences were observed for either comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of inhaled aerosolized vasodilators for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension during cardiac surgery is associated with improved right ventricular performance when compared to intravenously administered agents. This review does not support any benefit compared to placebo on major outcomes. Further investigation is warranted in this area of research and should focus on clinically significant outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".