ABSTRACT
The objective of the present work is to describe the experience with intravenous (IV) sildenafil in heart transplant (HT) patients with reactive pulmonary hypertension (PH) who developed right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in the immediate postoperative period. The first 5 patients who received IV sildenafil followinga HT are presented. The HTs took place between March 2011 and September 2012 in patients aged 37 to 64 years; all patients were male. Prior to the HT, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) was 32-56 mmHg. In all cases, the hemodynamic study demonstrated PH reactivity (positive vasodilator test with nitric oxide). All 5 patients developed RVD with hemodynamic instability immediately after the HT, despite the administration of nitric oxide from the time of intubation prior to the implant, optimal medical treatment in all cases, and a ventricular assist in 2 cases. In all patients, IV sildenafil was initiated at 10 mg/8 h for 48 h and was subsequently increased to 20 mg/8 h. in its oral formulation until discharge from the hospital. The change in pulmonary pressure was assessed using a Swan-Ganz catheter. Ventricular function was assessed using echocardiography. Length of stay in the Resuscitation Unit and mid-term survival were also assessed. Average time of extracorporeal circulation was 200 ± 110 min and organ ischemic time was 210 ± 95 min. All of the patients demonstrated pulmonary and systemic hemodynamic improvement, as well as recovery of right ventricular function after completing the treatment with IV sildenafil. The stay in the Resuscitation Unit lasted 3-25 days. All the patients were discharged from hospital with no mortality to date. Intravenous sildenafil improves right ventricle hemodynamics associated with pulmonary hypertension post-HT. Prophylactic prevention with this drug could be indicated for patients with reactive PH who are about to receive a transplant.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the most common drug-related problems (DRPs) found after discharge, pharmacist interventions and their results for the patients enrolled on the CONSULTENOS programme. METHODS: An observational, prospective, multicentre study was conducted to evaluate the results of a pharmaceutical care programme at discharge. Patients from 10 hospitals participating in the CONSULTENOS programme were enrolled. Pharmacists conducting this programme were newly graduated and worked under the supervision of a pharmacy staff member; only two pharmacists had previous hospital pharmacy experience. DRPs were identified and classified according to the Iaser methodology. Frequencies, types of DRP, interventions and outcomes were registered prospectively, at discharge and during a follow-up call 7 days after leaving the hospital. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 7711 patients were included in the study. DRPs were detected in 23.7% of the patients, with a total of 2120 DRPs (1788 at discharge and 332 in the follow-up). The most common problems identified at discharge were twofold: firstly the need of an additional treatment (34.1%) and secondly an unnecessary treatment (18.1%). In the follow-up phone call the most frequent DRPs were adverse effects (29.2%). Besides the standard educational interventions at discharge, 3313 extra interventions were performed, of which 85% were accepted. The outcomes for the patients were positive in 80% of the cases, although documentation with objective or subjective data was rare. CONCLUSIONS: DRPs occur frequently after patient discharge. A pharmaceutical care programme can identify and solve DRPs in this scenario. The clinical impact of the pharmacists' interventions should be better addressed.
