• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Effects of Lipo-Prostaglandin E^Sub 1^ on Pulmonary Hemodynamics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension*

Posted on: Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 03:00 CDT

Objective: To determine whether lipid microspheres containing prostaglandin E^sub 1^ (lipp-PGE^sub 1^) improve pulmonary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

Methods: Forty-nine patients with PAH (8 patients with primary pulmonary hypertension, 21 patients with collagen vascular disease, 20 patients with congenital systemic-to-pulmonary shunts) were randomly classified into a conventional therapy group (n = 22) or a group receiving lipo-PGE^sub 1^ plus conventional drugs (lipo- PGE^sub 1^ group; n = 27). Echocardiographic pulmonary parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and Bruce treadmill test results for exercise capacity were recorded before and after treatment.

Results: After 2 weeks of treatment with lipo-PGE^sub 1^ (10 g bid for 14 days), there were significant improvements in the values ( SD) for systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP) [76.9 27.9 mm Hg vs 66.5 22.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001]; total pulmonary resistance (27.2 13.3 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^ vs 20.2 10.7 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^, p < 0.001); left ventricular ejection fraction (58.7 9.6% vs 64.4 6.8%, p < 0.001); and cardiac output (3.1 0.8 L/min vs 3.7 1.1 L/min, p < 0.01). The NYHA functional class decreased from 3.0 0.6 to 2.5 0.6 (p < 0.001), and the exercise capacity increased from 2.8 1.0 to 4.3 1.3 metabolic equivalents (MET) [p < 0.001]. Compared with the conventional therapy group, the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group achieved significant reduction of SPAP (10.4 10.3 mm Hg vs 2.2 5.6 mm Hg, p = 0.002) and a significant elevation of exercise capacity (1.5 0.9 MET vs 0.6 1.1 MET, p = 0.018).

Conclusion: Lipo-PGE^sub 1^ can decrease pulmonary artery pressure and increase exercise capacity in patients with PAH. (CHEST 2005; 128:714-719)

Key words: echocardiography; exercise capacity; lipo- prostaglamlin E^sub 1^; pulmonary arterial hypertension; pulmonary hemodynamics

Abbreviations: CO = cardiac output; CSPS = congenital systemic- to-pulmonary shunts; CVD = collagen vascular disease; lipo-PGE^sub 1^ = lipid microspheres containing prostaglandin E^sub 1^; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MET = metabolic equivalents; NYHA = New York Heart Association; PAH = pulmonary arterial hypertension; PGE^sub 1^ = prostaglandin E^sub 1^; PGI^sub 2^ = prostacyclin I^sub 2^; PPH = primary pulmonary hypertension; SPAP = systolic pulmonary arterial pressure; TPR = total pulmonary resistance

Pulmonary hypertension is a debilitating disease with short life expectancy that often affects young people. Continuous IV administration of prostacyclin I^sub 2^ (PGI^sub 2^) has been used for pulmonary vasodilation and was shown to improve exercise capacity and survival in patients with pulmonary hypertension.1-3 However, this drug and other prostacyclin analogues are not available in Shanghai, China. Prostaglandin E^sub 1^ (PGE^sub 1^) has similar vasodilatory and antithrombotic action, but is not as potent as PGI^sub 2^. Lipid microspheres, as carriers, are known to accumulate in sites of inflammation or vascular lesions and thus enhance the effects of the drugs and alleviate the side effects4,5. Whether or not lipid microspheres containing PGE^sub 1^ (lipo- PGE^sub 1^) have potential effects on pulmonary hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary hypertension is not known. In this report, a prospective, randomized, control study was done to investigate the effects of lipo-PGE^sub 1^ on pulmonary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

Table 1-Demographic Data of the Two Groups*

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

Forty-nine consecutive patients with PAH, as defined by the World Health Organization symposium in 1998,6 were referred to our wards between June 2000 and July 2003. Eight of these patients had primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), 21 patients had collagen vascular disease (CVD) [including 14 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, 4 with mixed connective tissue disease, and 3 with systemic sclerosis], 20 patients had congenital systemic-to- pulmonary shunts (CSPS) [19 patients with congenital atrium septal defect, and 1 with Lutembacher syndrome]. We have two clinics and two wards. Both belong to one department, and the physicians were blinded to the study. Patients were randomly sent to either clinic. Patients referred to the west wards were treated with lipo-PGE^sub 1^ in addition to conventional therapy (lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group, n = 27; 20 women and 7 men); patients referred to the east wards were treated with conventional therapy alone (n = 22; 15 women and 7 men). Clinical evaluations, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class evaluation, ECG, chest radiography, and Doppler echocardiography were performed in all patients before treatment. Patients who were able to stand underwent treadmill testing for maximal exercise capacity according to the Bruce protocol.

Echocardiography

Combined Doppler echocardiography was performed by technicians blinded to the study with ultrasound imaging system. Standard parastemal long-axis, short-axis, and apical four- and two-chamber views were obtained. The following major pulmonary parameters were measured: (1) systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP), calculated from the sum of the peak tricuspid insufficiency Doppler pressure gradient and an estimate of right atrial pressure7; this method was also verified by right-heart catheter measurement in our study 3-4 years ago8; (2) end-systolic and end-diastolic left ventricular cross-sectional areas and diameters were measured in parasternal short-axis and apical four-chamber views; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac output (CO) were calculated by a modified Simpson formula programmed into the system; and (3) total pulmonary resistance (TPR) was calculated by dividing SPAP by CO.9

Table 2-Clinical and Hemodynamic Data of the Two Groups*

Treatment

Both groups of patients were treated with conventional therapy, such its digitalis, diuretics, nitrates, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Calcium antagonists were only used for systemic hypertension. Prednisone was mainly used in patients with CVD. For patients with inactive disease, the daily dosage was approximately 30 to 60 mg; for patients with active disease, the dosage was approximately 1 to 2 mg/kg/d. PPH patients with pulmonary thrombotic complications also received oral anticoagulants. Besides these conventional treatments, patients in the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group also received lipo-PGE^sub 1^, 10 g plus 10 mL normal saline solution through peripheral IV injection hid for 2 weeks (infusion rate, 20 ng/kg/min; interval, 6 to 8 h). Both group of patients were followed up with clinical evaluations, ECG, chest radiography, and Doppler echocardiography; some patients underwent treadmill testing for exercise capacity after 2 weeks of treatment.

Statistical Analysis

All data were expressed as mean SD. The hemodynamic effects of the therapy were analyzed with the paired Student t test. To determine whether lipo-PGE^sub 1^ therapy was more effective than conventional therapy, the improvement values (the difference between before and after treatment) were compared. The two-sided analysis of covariance, the independent-samples t test, and χ^sup 2^ tests were performed to test for significant difference between two groups and exclude possible within-group variance (SPSS 10.09 on the WIN- PRO platform; SPSS; Chicago. IL). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Table 3-Types of Conventional Therapy Used in the Two Groups

RESULTS

The demographic, clinical, and hemodynamic data at baseline were not significantly different between the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group and the conventional therapy group (Tables 1, 2). There was no difference in conventional therapy between the two groups (Table 3).

Compared to baseline, after 2 weeks of treatment with lipo- PGE^sub 1^ and conventional drugs, the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group showed significant improvements in SPAP (from 76.9 27.9 mm Hg to 66.5 22.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001), TPR (from 27.2 13.3 to 20.2 10.7 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^, p < 0.001), LVEF (from 58.7 9.6% to 64.4 6.8%, p < 0.001), and CO (from 3.1 0.8 L/min to 3.7 1.1 L/min, p < 0.01). Also, the NYHA functional class decreased from 3.0 0.6 to 2.5 0.6 (p < 0.001), and exercise capacity increased from 2.8 1.0 to 4.3 1.3 metabolic equivalents (MET) [p < 0.001; Fig 1].

FIGURE 1. The effect of lipo-PGE^sub 1^ on SPAP (top left, A), TPR (top center, B), LVEF (top right, C), CO (bottom left, D), exercise capacity (bottom center, E), and NYHA functional class (bottom right, F).

Compared to baseline, the conventional therapy group also showed a significant increase in LVEF (58.0 7.9% vs 61.5 7.0%, p < 0.05), CO (3.2 0.9 L/min vs 3.6 0.9 L/min, p < 0.05), a significant decrease in TPR (24.9 12.7 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^ vs 21.3 9.9 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^, p < 0.005), and NYHA functional class (3.00.4 vs 2.60.5, p < 0.005). But SPAP (73.8 29.2 mm Hg vs 71.6 28.4 mm Hg, p > 0.05) and exercise capacity (2.9 1.2 MET vs 3.5 0.9 MET, p > 0.05) did not change (Fig 2).

FIGURE 2. The effect of conventional therapy on SPAP (top left, A), TPR (top center, B), LVEF (top right, C), CO (bottom le\ft, D), exercise capacity (bottom center, E), and NYHA functional class (bottom right, F).

To compare the treatment effects between the two groups, the improvement values of the parameters were calculated. Compared to the conventional therapy group, the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group achieved a significant reduction in SPAP (10.4 10.3 mm Hg vs 2.2 5.6 mm Hg, p = 0.002), a nonsignificant reduction in TPR (6.9 6.3 dyne.s.cm^sup - 5^ vs 3.6 5.5 dyne.s.cm^sup -5^, p = 0.057), and a significant elevation in exercise capacity (1.5 0.9 MET vs 0.6 1.1 MET, p = 0.018) [Fig 3]. With the baseline value of the parameters acting as covariates in addition to the treatment, the results of covariance analysis showed no differences in between-subject effects or within- group variance.

FIGURE 3. The comparisons of improvement values of SPAP (left, A) and exercise capacity (right, B) between the lipo-PGE^sub 1^ group and the conventional therapy group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.018, respectively).

Within 2 weeks of the administration of lipo-PGE^sub 1^, significant side effects were seen in six patients (22%) in the treatment group: local irritation in two patients, nausea in two patients, itchy sensation in one patient, and a warm sensation of the chest during infusion in one patient. No patient complained of symptoms related to systemic hypotension.

DISCUSSION

PAH is characterized by elevation of pulmonary artery pressure and pulmonary resistance, in the absence of left-sided heart disease, lung disease, or pulmonary thromboembolic disease. PAH can be idiopathic or familial, and can arise in association with CVD, CSPS, portal hypertension, HIV infection, and exposure to anorexigens.6,10 In this report, we included patients with PPH (now idiopathic PAH is a better term since the 2003 World Health Organization classification of pulmonary hypertension) and PAH associated with CVD and CSPS.

The current pharmacologic treatment of PAH is directed at preventing or reversing vasoconstriction, vasoproliferation, and thrombosis10-12. Continuous IV infusion of PGI^sub 2^ is an effective treatment to lower both pulmonary pressure and resistance, and it has been shown to improve exercise tolerance and enhance the quality of life.1-3 Other prostacyclin analogues administered by continuous subcutaneous infusion,13 orally,14 or by intermittent inhalation15 all show promise. PGE^sub 1^, like prostacyclin, is a vasodilator with antiplatelet and antiproliferative effects. The use of PGE^sub 1^ in pulmonary hypertension with CVD,16 open-heart surgery in children,17 and PPH has previously been reported. However, since PGE^sub 1^ is not as potent as PGI^sub 2^ and increase of dosage leads to serious side effects, PGE^sub 1^ is not widely accepted in clinical practice.

Lipid microspheres, acting as drug carriers, can target the drug to diseased sites, such as inflammatory and vascular lesions, especially the subendothelial space, protecting the drugs from being rapidly metabolized, increasing the clinical efficacy and relieving the adverse effects of the drug. Lipo-PGE^sub 1^, a lipid microsphere formula of PGE^sub 1^, shows a stronger pharmacologie effect than PGE^sub 1^. In various clinical trials, 10 g/d of lipo- PGE^sub 1^ was administered, and its clinical efficacy had been confirmed in the treatment of peripheral vascular disorders resulting from collagen disease, arteriosclerosis obliterans, and ductus arteriosus-dependent congenital heart disease4,5. However, its effects on pulmonary hypertension have not been reported. According to Naeije et al,18 PGE^sub 1^ at an infusion rate of 20 ng/ kg/min decreases pulmonary pressure and systemic pressure by 20% and 7%, respectively; while at an infusion rate of 40 ng/kg/min, it could lower pulmonary pressure and systemic pressure by 24% and 14%, respectively. In order to enhance the clinical effects and alleviate the side effects of systemic hypotension, we used 10 g bid of lipo- PGE^sub 1^, with an infusion rate of 20 ng/kg/ min. After 2 weeks of treatment, we found there was a significant decrease in pulmonary artery pressure and a significant increase in exercise capacity by treadmill testing in patients with PAH. No serious side effects were detected.

Although PAH presents similar pathologic findings of plexogenic arteriopathy,6,11 the etiologies and pathogenesis of pulmonary hypertension vary. The vascular changes in congenital heart disease are secondary rather than primary. Pulmonary hypertension in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus or mixed connective tissue diseases might be associated with inflammation, while pulmonary hypertension in systemic sclerosis patients might be associated with bland vasculopathy. The inclusion of heterogeneous patients might have affected the results of our study, and this is one of the drawbacks of the study, as we found the effects of lipo- PGE^sub 1^ somewhat differed in different kinds of PAH. Individual subjects even deteriorated after receiving lipo-PGE^sub 1^. However, the numbers in the subgroups were too small for us to draw any substantial conclusions.

Our study had other limitations. We did not use placebo or PGE^sub 1^ infusions to compare the effects of lipo-PGE^sub 1^, and we did not have long-term observations; therefore, our current data are too preliminary to allow recommendations for new therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, no definitive conclusion about the influence of etiology of the disease on treatment response can be made at this stage. A longer study with a more uniform group of patients and a further study with a placebo control is needed to address these issues.

CONCLUSION

IV infusion of lipo-PGE^sub 1^ can effectively lower pulmonary pressure and improve the exercise tolerance in patients with PAH.

* From the Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Second Medical University-Affiliated Renji Hospital, Shanghai, Republic of China.

REFERENCES

1 McLaughlin W, Genthner DE, Panella MM, et al. Reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance with long-term epoprostenol (prostacyclin) therapy in primary pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:273-277

2 Wax D, Garofano R, Barst RJ. Effects of long-term infusion of prostacyclin on exercise performance in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Chest 1999; 116:914-920

3 Badesch DB, Tapson VF, McGoon MD, et al. Continuous intravenous epoprostenol for pulmonary hypertension due to the scleroderma spectrum of disease: a randomized, controlled trial. Am Intern Med 2000; 132:425-434

4 Yamaguchi T. Lipid microspheres as drug carriers: a pharmaceutical point of view. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1996; 20:117-130

5 Mizushima Y, Hoshi K. Review: recent advances in lipid microsphere technology for targeting prostaglandin delivery. J Drug Target 1993; 1:93-100

6 Strange JW, Wharton J, Phillips PG, et al. Recent insights into the pathogenesis and therapeutics of pulmonary hypertension. Clin Sci 2002; 102:253-268

7 Murata I, Takenaka K, Yoshinoya S, et al. Clinical evaluation of pulmonary hypertension in systemic sclerosis and related disorders: a Doppler echocardiographic study of 135 Japanese patients. Chest 1997; 111:36-43

8 Shen JY, Chen SL, Wu YX, et al. Pulmonary hypertension in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 1999; 18:147-153

9 Winslow TM, Ossipov MA, Fazio GP, et al. Five-year follow-up study of the prevalence and progression of pulmonary hypertension in systemic lupus erythematosus. Am Heart J 1995; 129:510-515

10 Mehta S. Drug therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension: what's on the menu today? Chest 2003; 124:2045-2048

11 Sharma S. Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a step forward. Chest 2003; 124:8-10

12 Wanstall JC, Jeffery TK. Recognition and management of pulmonary hypertension. Drugs 1998; 56:989-1007

13 Simonneau G, Barst RJ, Galie N, et al. Continuous subcutaneous infusion of treprostinil, a prostacyclin analogue, in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:800-804

14 Vizza CD, Sciomer S, Morelli S, et al. Long term treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension with beraprost, an oral prostacyclin analogue. Heart 2001; 86:661-665

15 Machherndl S, Kneussl M, Baumgartner H, et al. Long-term treatment of pulmonary hypertension with aerosolized iloprost. Eur Respir J 2001; 17:8-13

16 Kawahara R, Takezawa J, Mike N, et al. Prostaglandin E^sub 1^ in pulmonary hypertension of collagen disease [case report]. Crit Care Med 1987; 15:884

17 Kermode J, Butt W, Shann F. Comparison between prostaglandin E^sub 1^ and epoprostenol (prostacyclin) in infants after heart surgery. Br Heart J 1991; 66:175

18 Naeije R, Melot C, Mols P, et al. Reduction in pulmonary hypertension by prostaglandin E^sub 1^ in decompensated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982; 125:1-5

Jieyan Shen, MD; Ben He, PhD; and Binyao Wang, MD

Manuscript received January 30, 2004; revision accepted January 20, 2005.

Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal. org/misc/reprints.shtml).

Correspondence to: Jieyan Shen, MD, Department of Cardiology, Renji Hospital 1630 Dona Fang Rd, Shanghai 200127, ROC; e-mail: Shenjieyan_66@hotmail.com.

Copyright American College of Chest Physicians Aug 2005

Source: Chest

More News in this Category