Comparison of Fixed-Dose Inhaled Epoprostenol and Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Adults.

PURPOSE

Several reports have demonstrated similar effects on oxygenation between inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) compared to inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Previous studies directly comparing oxygenation and clinical outcomes between iEPO and iNO exclusively in an adult ARDS patient population utilized a weight-based dosing strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and economic impact between iNO and fixed-dosed iEPO for ARDS in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a major academic medical center between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2018. Patients ≥18 years of age with moderate-to-severe ARDS were included. The primary end point was to compare the mean change in partial arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao : Fio ) at 4 hours from baseline between iEPO and iNO. Other secondary aims were total acquisition drug costs, in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients were included with 139 (58.2%) and 100 (41.8%) in the iEPO and iNO groups, respectively. The mean change in Pao : Fio at 4 hours from baseline in the iEPO and iNO groups were 31.4 ± 54.6 and 32.4 ± 42.7 mm Hg, respectively ( = .88). The responder rate at 4 hours was similar between iEPO and iNO groups (64.7% and 66.0%, respectively, = .84). Clinical outcomes including mortality, overall hospital and ICU length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration were similar between iEPO and iNO groups. Estimated annual cost-savings realized with iEPO was USD1 074 433.

CONCLUSION

Fixed-dose iEPO was comparable to iNO in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS for oxygenation and ventilation parameters as well as clinical outcomes. Significant cost-savings were realized with iEPO use.