Opitz C F, Wensel R, Bettmann M, Schaffarczyk R, Linscheid M, Hetzer R, Ewert R
Department of Cardiology, DRK-Kliniken Westend, Medizinische Klinik II, Spandauer Damm 130, 14050 Berlin, Germany.
Eur Heart J. 2003 Feb;24(4):356-65. doi: 10.1016/s0195-668x(02)00302-0.
To directly compare the differential effects of oxygen, prostacyclin and iloprost (aerosolized and intravenous) in primary pulmonary hypertension.
Twenty-one patients with severe primary pulmonary hypertension underwent right heart catheterization following oxygen inhalation, inhalation of aerosolized iloprost, intravenous prostacyclin or intravenous iloprost. The stability of the iloprost solution was tested for up to 4 weeks. Oxygen slightly decreased pulmonary vascular resistance. Intravenous prostacyclin (7.2+/-3.4 ng kg(-1) min(-1)) reduced pulmonary (1772+/-844 vs 1325+/-615 dyn s cm(-5), P<0.001) and systemic vascular resistance, and arterial and right atrial pressure, while cardiac output increased. Iloprost inhalation diminished pulmonary (1813+/-827 vs 1323+/-614 dyn s cm(-5), P<0.001) and systemic vascular resistance, and pulmonary artery (58+/-12 vs 50+/-12 mmHg,P<0.001) and right atrial pressure, while cardiac output increased. With intravenous iloprost (1.2+/-0.5 ng kg(-1) min(-1), n=8) a decrease in pulmonary (2202+/-529 vs 1515+/-356 dyn s cm(-5), P<0.05) and systemic vascular resistance and right a trial pressure occurred while cardiac output increased. Iloprost solution remained stable for 33 days while losing <10% (4 degrees C) of its active drug concentration.Conclusions Intravenous iloprost and prostacyclin have very similar haemodynamic profiles. In contrast, only inhaled iloprost exerted selective pulmonary vasodilation, reducing pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary artery pressure without systemic vasodilation. The longer half-life and extended stability despite lower costs render iloprost an attractive alternative to chronic prostacyclin treatment in primary pulmonary hypertension.
直接比较氧气、前列环素和伊洛前列素(雾化吸入和静脉注射)对原发性肺动脉高压的不同作用。
21例重度原发性肺动脉高压患者在吸入氧气、雾化吸入伊洛前列素、静脉注射前列环素或静脉注射伊洛前列素后接受了右心导管检查。对伊洛前列素溶液的稳定性进行了长达4周的测试。氧气使肺血管阻力略有降低。静脉注射前列环素(7.2±3.4 ng·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹)可降低肺血管阻力(1772±844 vs 1325±615 dyn·s·cm⁻⁵,P<0.001)和体循环血管阻力,以及动脉压和右心房压,同时心输出量增加。吸入伊洛前列素可降低肺血管阻力(1813±827 vs 1323±614 dyn·s·cm⁻⁵,P<0.001)和体循环血管阻力,以及肺动脉压(58±12 vs 50±12 mmHg,P<0.001)和右心房压,同时心输出量增加。静脉注射伊洛前列素(1.2±0.5 ng·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹,n = 8)可降低肺血管阻力(2202±529 vs 1515±356 dyn·s·cm⁻⁵,P<0.05)和体循环血管阻力以及右心房压,同时心输出量增加。伊洛前列素溶液在33天内保持稳定,活性药物浓度损失<10%(4℃)。结论静脉注射伊洛前列素和前列环素具有非常相似的血流动力学特征。相比之下,只有吸入伊洛前列素能产生选择性肺血管舒张作用,降低肺血管阻力和肺动脉压而不引起体循环血管舒张。伊洛前列素半衰期较长且稳定性好,尽管成本较低,但使其成为原发性肺动脉高压慢性前列环素治疗的有吸引力的替代方案。