Objective To describe short-term and long-term outcomes of preterm neonates with severe acute pulmonary hypertension (aPHT) in relation to response to rescue inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) therapy.
Design Retrospective cohort studyover a 6 year period.
Setting Tertiary neonatal intensive care unit.
Patients 89 neonates <35 weeks gestational age (GA) who received rescue iNO for aPHT, including 62 treated at ≤3 days of age (early aPHT).
Interventions iNO ≥ 1 hour.
Main outcome measures Positive responders (reduction in fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥0.20 within 1 hour of iNO) were compared with non-responders. Primary outcome was survival without moderate-to-severe disability at 18 months of age.
Results Mean (SD) GA and birth weight was 27.7 (3.0) weeks and 1077 (473) gm, respectively. Median (IQR) pre-iNO FiO2 was 1.0 (1.0, 1.0). Positive response rate to iNO was 46%. Responders showed improved survival without disability (51% vs 15%; p<0.01), lower mortality (34% vs 71%; p<0.01) and disability among survivors (17% vs 50%; p=0.06). Higher GA (adjusted OR: 1.44 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.89)), aPHT in context of preterm prolonged rupture of membranes (6.26 (95% CI 1.44 to 27.20)) and positive response to rescue iNO (5.81 (95% CI 1.29 to, 26.18)) were independently associated with the primary outcome. Compared with late cases (>3 days of age), early aPHT had a higher response rate to iNO (61% vs 11%; p<0.01) and lower mortality (43% vs 78%; p<0.01).
Conclusion A positive response to rescue iNO in preterm infants with aPHT is associated with survival benefit, which is not offset by long-term disability.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MB, SG, DEW, PJM, EK, PSS and AJ made substantial contribution to the study conception and design. MB, SG and AJ finalised data collection forms and DEW, PJM, EK, PSS provided critical input. MB and SG were responsible for data collection which were directly supervised by AJ. AJ performed the statistical analysis for the study with critical inputs from DEK and PSS. MB was responsible for producing the first draft of the manuscript which was directly supervised by AJ. SG, DEW, PJM, EK and PSS made significant contributions in data interpretation and revising the manuscript critically.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.