Table 3.
Author | Country | Date | Agents Used | Design | N | Inclusion criteria | Primary End-Point | Level of Evidence | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Fattouch et al. [45] | Italy | 2006 | iPGI2 vs iNO vs intravenous vasodilators | RCT Unicenter | 58 | MVR + PHT before the end of CPB | Hemodynamic | A1b |
2 | Ocal et al. [14] | Turkey | 2005 | iPGI2 vs NTG | RCT Multicenter | 68 | CABG with protamine reaction after CPB | Hemodynamic | A1b |
3 | Stafford et al. [44] | USA NC | 2005 | Heparinase vs protamine | Non-inferiority clinical trial design Multicenter | 167 | CABG on + off pump after CPB | Bleeding | A1b |
4 | Fattouch et al. [46] | Italy | 2005 | iPGI2 vs iNO vs intravenous vasodilators | RCT Unicenter | 58 | MVR + PHT in the intensive care unit | Hemodynamic | A1b |
5 | Hache et al. [53] | Canada | 2003 | iPGI2 vs placebo | RCT Unicenter | 20 | PHT before CPB | Hemodynamic | A1b |
6 | Solina et al. [47] | USA | 2001 | iNO vs milrinone | RCT Unicenter | 62 | PHT after surgery | Hemodynamic | B |
7 | Feneck et al. [49] | UK | 2001 | Milrinone vs dobutamine | RCT Multicenter | 120 | CO < 2 L/min/m² et PAOP > 10 mmHg after cardiac surgery | Hemodynamic | A1b |
8 | Solina et al. [48] | USA | 2000 | iNO vs milrinone | RCT Unicenter | 45 | PHT after surgery | Hemodynamic | A1b |
9 | Schmid et al. [50] | Switzerland | 1999 | iNO vs NTG vs PGE1 | Crossover Unicenter | 14 | PHT after surgery | Hemodynamic | B |
10 | Hachenberg et al. [51] | Germany | 1997 | Enoximone vs dobutamine+NTG | RCT Unicenter | 20 | HTP in MVR before and after surgery | Hemodynamic | A1b |
CABG: coronary artery bypass graft, CO: cardiac output, CPB: cardiopulmonary bypass, iNO: inhaled nitric oxide, iPGI2: inhaled prostacyclin, MVR: mitral valve replacement, NO: nitric oxide, NTG: nitroglycerin, OR: operating room, PAOP: pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, PGE1: prostaglandin E1, PGI2: prostacyclin, PHT: pulmonary hypertension, RCT: randomized controlled trial, UK: United Kingdom, USA: United States of America.