Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

A multicentre randomized-controlled trial of inhaled milrinone in high-risk cardiac surgical patients CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE Denault, A. Y., Bussieres, J. S., Arellano, R., Finegan, B., Gavra, P., Haddad, F., Nguyen, A. Q., Varin, F., Fortier, A., Levesque, S., Shi, Y., Elmi-Sarabi, M., Tardif, J., Perrault, L. P., Lambert, J. 2016; 63 (10): 1140-1153

Abstract

Inhaled milrinone (iMil) has been used for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PH) but its efficacy, safety, and prophylactic effects in facilitating separation from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and preventing right ventricular (RV) dysfunction have not yet been evaluated in a clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to investigate if iMil administered before CPB would be superior to placebo in facilitating separation from CPB.High-risk cardiac surgical patients with PH were randomized to receive iMil or placebo after the induction of anesthesia and before CPB. Hemodynamic parameters and RV function were evaluated by means of pulmonary artery catheterization and transesophageal echocardiography. The groups were compared for the primary outcome of the level of difficulty in weaning from CPB. Among the secondary outcomes examined were the reduction in the severity of PH, the incidence of RV failure, and mortality.Of the 124 patients randomized, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) EuroSCORE II was 8.0 (2.6), and the baseline mean (SD) systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) was 53 (9) mmHg. The use of iMil was associated with increases in cardiac output (P = 0.03) and a reduction in SPAP (P = 0.04) with no systemic hypotension. Nevertheless, there was no difference in the combined incidence of difficult or complex separation from CPB between the iMil and control groups (30% vs 28%, respectively; absolute difference, 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -14 to 18; P = 0.78). There was also no difference in RV failure between the iMil and control groups (15% vs 14%, respectively; difference, 1%; 95% CI, -13 to 12; P = 0.94). Mortality was increased in patients with RV failure vs those without (22% vs 2%, respectively; P < 0.001).In high-risk cardiac surgery patients with PH, the prophylactic use of iMil was associated with favourable hemodynamic effects that did not translate into improvement of clinically relevant endpoints. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT00819377.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s12630-016-0709-8

View details for Web of Science ID 000383592000004

View details for PubMedID 27470232