scholarly journals Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Different Doses of Sildenafil in the Treatment of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn: A Network Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linli Sun ◽  
Chunxia Wang ◽  
Yulu Zhou ◽  
Wei Sun ◽  
Chunjiang Wang

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of sildenafil for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) with Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis.Methods: We searched Chinese and English databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning sildenafil in newborns with persistent pulmonary hypertension from 1998 to December 2020.Results: Twenty-two RCTs including over 2131 patients were included. Sildenafil was administered by nasal feeding at 0.3–2 mg/kg every 4–6 h. The network meta-analysis revealed that 1.5 mg/kg of sildenafil led to a significant decrease in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) compared with 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg (p < 0.05); 1.5 mg/kg was better than 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/kg at increasing the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) (p < 0.05); 1.5 mg/kg was better than 0.5, 0.6 and 1.0 mg/kg at reducing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (p < 0.05); and 1.2 mg/kg was better than 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg at increasing the arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) (p < 0.05). The surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) results showed that 1.5 mg/kg had the best effect in reducing PASP (SUCRA = 92.0%, moderate certainty evidence) and PaCO2 (91.1%) and increasing PaO2 (SUCRA = 79.3%, moderate certainty evidence), 2.0 mg/kg had the best effect in increasing SaO2 (SUCRA = 88.6%, moderate certainty evidence) and total effective rate (SUCRA = 93.5%, low certainty of evidence)). No severe adverse effects were observed with the different doses of sildenafil.Conclusion: Different doses of sildenafil can significantly improve PPHN, and 1.5 mg/kg of sildenafil has better clinical efficacy and does not increase the probability of adverse reactions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052110327
Author(s):  
Weihua Liu ◽  
Wenli Yu ◽  
Hongli Yu ◽  
Mingwei Sheng

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e0119948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung Soo Kim ◽  
Jinkyeong Park ◽  
Seong Yong Lim ◽  
Yeon-Mok Oh ◽  
Kwang Ha Yoo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document