Nitric oxide versus epoprostenol for refractory hypoxemia in Covid-19.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and outcomes with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to COVID-19.DesignRetrospective Cohort Study.SettingSingle health system multicenter academic teaching hospitals.Patients or subjectsAge group of 18-80 years admitted to the medical ICU.InterventionsMechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection, who received either iNO or iEPO between March 1st, 2020, and June 30th, 2020.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was the change in the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio 1 hour after initiation of pulmonary vasodilator therapy. Secondary outcomes include P/F ratios on days 1-3 after initiation, positive response in P/F ratio (increase of at least 20% in PaO2), total days of treatment, rebound hypoxemia (if there was a drop in oxygen saturation after treatment was stopped), ventilator free days (if any patient was extubated), days in ICU, days to extubation, days to tracheostomy, mortality days after intubation, 30-day survival and mortality. 183 patients were excluded, as they received both iNO and iEPO. Of the remaining 103 patients, 62 received iEPO and 41 received iNO. The severity of ARDS was similar in both groups. Change in P/F ratio at one hour was 116 (70.3) with iNO and 107 (57.6) with iEPO (Mean/SD). Twenty-two (53.7%) patients in the iNO group and 25 (40.3%) in the iEPO group were responders to pulmonary vasodilators n(%)(p = 0.152) (more than 20% increase in partial pressure of oxygen, Pao2), and 18 (43.9%) and 31 (50%) patients in the iNO and iEPO group (p = 0.685), respectively, had rebound hypoxemia. Only 7 patients in the cohort achieved ventilator free days (3 in the iEPO group and 4 in iNO group).ConclusionsWe found no significant difference between iNO and iEPO in terms of change in P/F ratio, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, in-hospital mortality in this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Larger, prospective studies are necessary to validate these results.