Abstract
Dr Laudi and colleagues note that 32 of patients
in our series received inhaled nitric oxide before commencingECMOfor
2009 influenza A(H1N1)a??related ARDS.
As a case series, management of patients followed clinical
practice rather than standardized care, and we did not collect
data on nitric oxide dosage or use once ECMO was initiated.
One of the notable features of the pandemic was the
widespread distribution of patients to intensive care units
(ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand, with many admissions
to community hospitals, few of which are likely to have
nitric oxide available. The meta-analysis1 cited by Laudi et
al concluded that a??nitric oxide is associated with limited improvement
in oxygenation in patients with [acute lung injury]
or ARDS but confers no mortality benefit and may cause
harm.a?? We are unaware of data indicating that nitric oxide
is better than other rescue therapies, such as recruitment
maneuvers, prone positioning, and inhaled prostacyclin,
which were widely used in our patients. We are also unaware
of strong clinical evidence to support an antiviral effect.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 942 - 942 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | JAMA |
| Volume | 303 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| Publication status | Published - 2010 |
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver