Evidence Hub

A Network Meta-Analysis of Vasodilator Therapies in Pulmonary Hypertension Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement Surgery: Insights for Optimizing Hemodynamics

Elrosasy A, Maher A, Ramadan A, Hamam NG, Soliman M, Kamal SK, Milik BE, Shahat AA et al.

Clinical drug investigation, 2024

862 participants

Abstract

Background and objective: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a progressive hemodynamic condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, the objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy of various pulmonary vasodilators in perioperative control of PH among patients undergoing mitral valve replacement surgery (MVRS), aiming to address the existing knowledge gap and improve perioperative outcomes.

Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception to 17 September 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vasodilators in PH patients undergoing MVRS were included. We used netmeta package in RStudio to analyze the outcome data with their corresponding mean difference (MD) and confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Seventeen RCTs including 862 patients were analyzed. Prostacyclin, nitric oxide (NO), and sodium nitroprusside (SN) significantly reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure with effect sizes [MD, 95% confidence interval (CI)] of (11.77, - 18.78; - 4.76; - 8.3, - 15.9; - 0.6; - 11.02, - 20.1; - 3.8, respectively). While no treatment showed significant efficacy on pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, systolic pulmonary arterial pressure, or heart rate, nitroglycerin, NO, and prostacyclin, showed significant increases in cardiac index with effect sizes (MD, 95% CI)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 862 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free