The Clinical Impact of Flow Titration on Epoprostenol Delivery via High Flow Nasal Cannula for ICU Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension or Right Ventricular Dysfunction: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study.

(1) Background: inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) delivered via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been reported to be effective for pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction. In vitro studies have identified HFNC gas flow as a key factor in trans-nasal aerosol delivery efficiency; however, little evidence is available on the clinical impact of flow titration on trans-nasal aerosol delivery. At our institution, iEPO via HFNC was initiated in 2015 and the concept of flow titration during iEPO via HFNC has been gradually accepted and carried out by clinicians in the recent years. (2) Methods: a retrospective review of the electronic medical records for all adult patients who received iEPO via HFNC in a tertiary teaching hospital. Pre- and post- iEPO responses were reported for patients whose HFNC flow was titrated or maintained constant during iEPO delivery. Positive response to iEPO was defined as the reduction of mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) > 10% for pulmonary hypertension patients or the improvement of oxygenation [pulse oximetry (SpO)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FO)] > 20%. The number of responders to iEPO was compared between groups with titrated vs constant flow. (3) Results: 51 patients who used iEPO to treat pulmonary hypertension and/or right ventricular dysfunction were reviewed. Following iEPO administration via HFNC, mPAP decreased (43.6 ± 11.7 vs. 36.3 ± 9.7 mmHg, < 0.001). Among the 51 patients, 24 had concomitant refractory hypoxemia, their oxygenation (SpO/FO) improved after iEPO delivery (127.8 ± 45.7 vs. 157.6 ± 62.2, < 0.001). During iEPO initiation, gas flow was titrated in 25 patients and the remaining 26 patients used constant flow. The percentage of patients in the flow titration group who met the criteria for a positive response was higher compared to the group with constant flow (85.7% vs. 50%, = 0.035). Pre- vs post-iEPO responses were significant in the flow titration group included improvement in cardiac output ( = 0.050), cardiac index ( = 0.021) and FO reduction ( = 0.016). These improvements in hemodynamics and FO were not observed in the constant flow group. (4) Conclusion: in patients with pulmonary hypertension and/or right ventricular dysfunction, trans-nasal iEPO decreased pulmonary arterial pressure. It also improved oxygenation in patients with combined refractory hypoxemia. These improvements were more evident in patients whose gas flow was titrated during iEPO initiation than those patients using constant flow.