ArticleJHLT open2026
A retrospective pilot crossover study of protocolized transition from inhaled nitric oxide to inhaled epoprostenol in adult cardiothoracic surgery.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (iPVDs), including inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO), are commonly used in the perioperative management of right ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, and hypoxemia in cardiothoracic surgery. While randomized trials have shown clinical equivalence between iNO and iEPO, few studies have evaluated protocolized transitions between these agents in heterogeneous postoperative surgical populations. This retrospective pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, physiologic stability, and oxygenation effects of a unidirectional transition from iNO to iEPO in a real-world cardiothoracic intensive care setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 77 adult patients who underwent cardiothoracic surgery and were transitioned from iNO to iEPO using a standardized crossover protocol in a single tertiary-care cardiothoracic intensive care unit. Hemodynamic and oxygenation parameters were collected before and after transition. The primary outcomes were changes in mean arterial pressure, pulmonary artery pressures, central venous pressure, cardiac output, mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO₂), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂). Paired t-tests were used to compare pre- and post-crossover values. Results: All patients completed the transition without interruption or adverse clinical events. Hemodynamic parameters remained stable across the transition. Statistically significant reductions were observed in SvO₂ (71.3% to 69.6%, p = 0.0059) and SpO₂ (98.2% to 97.7%, p = 0.0007), though the absolute differences were small. No significant changes were observed in pulmonary artery pressures, MAP, CVP, or cardiac output. Conclusions: In this pragmatic, retrospective pilot study, protocolized transition from iNO to iEPO was safe, feasible, and well tolerated in a diverse cardiothoracic surgical population. The findings support iEPO as a cost-conscious alternative to iNO in the postoperative setting, with preserved hemodynamic stability and minimal changes in oxygenation. These results contribute to the growing evidence base for implementing standardized iPVD protocols in real-world practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.