Evidence Hub

Systematic Review of the Application of Pulmonary Hypertension Treatments in Ventricular Septal Defect, Pulmonary Atresia, and Major Aortopulmonary Collateral Arteries

K. Hirono, Keiko Uchida, Taku Ishii, Hidekazu Ishida, Shinichi Takatsuki, Hiroyuki Fukushima, K. Inai, Susumu Hosokawa et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2026

22 participants

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary atresia (PA) with ventricular septal defect (VSD) and major aortopulmonary collateral arteries (MAPCAs), a life-threatening congenital heart defect (CHD), is frequently associated with abnormal pulmonary blood flow and vascular remodeling, causing hypoxia and heart failure. Segmental pulmonary hypertension (PH), a distinct PH type, may exist in some patients. Pulmonary vasodilators have been considered for treatment; however, evidence of their efficacy and safety remains lacking. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Ichushi Web, encompassing studies from inception to May 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on patients with PA/VSD/MAPCAs treated with PH medications. Results: Of 86 studies screened, 6 met the inclusion criteria, including 1 cohort study and 5 case reports, comprising 22 patients. The most frequently administered medications were sildenafil (14 cases) and bosentan (12 cases), with 16 patients receiving monotherapy. Clinical improvements were observed in pulmonary vascular resistance (8/8 patients), oxygen saturation (8/19 patients), and symptoms (19/21 patients). Adverse effects were noted in five patients, including treatment discontinuation in two. Conclusions: PH medications may benefit some patients with PA/VSD/MAPCAs; however, the extremely limited sample size (n = 22) and substantial heterogeneity in anatomy, age, surgical status, and treatment regimens severely limit…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 22 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